520K75001 MANAGEMENT AGENCIES HANDBOOK for SECTION 208 AREAWIDE WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 SEPTEMBER 1975 ------- MANAGEMENT AGENCIES HANDBOOK for SECTION 208 AREAWIDE WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D,C. 20460 SEPTEMBER 1975 ------- PREFACE This is the fifth in a series of handbooks designed to provide local agencies with additional assistance in the Section 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management planning and implementation program. Designa- tion~ Work Plan, Cost Analysis, and Interim Output handbooks have already been published. These handbooks are designed as a supplement to the 208 Regula- tions, Guidelines, and EPA Policy Statements published as program guidance (AM memoranda) by the Water PlanninglDivision. The handbooks repeat or reference the regulations, guidelines and pOliciesJ and provide realistic examples of typical local agency responses. This handbook discusses the actions and institutional arrangements required to implement the areawide plan through construction, financing, planning of waste water management facilities, regulations, non-point source controls, and land use practices. Other EPA reference documents for the 208 areawid~ management program include: . 40 CFR, Part 126, Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Areas and Responsible Planning Agencies . 40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart F -- Interim Grant Regulations for Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agencies (May 1974) . Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning . (August 1975) . Area and Agency Designation Handbook for Section 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning (January 1975) . . Work Plan Handbook for Section 208 Areawide Wase Treat- ment Management Planning (February 1975) . Cost Analysis Handbook for Section 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Federal Assistance Applications (May 1975) . Interim Output Evaluation Handbook for Section 208 Area- wide Waste Treatment Management (June 1975) i ------- This handbook was prepared under EPA Contract No. 68-01-3195 by Elizabeth H. Haskell under subcontract to Centaur Management Consultants, Inc., with the direction and support of James W. Meek and the Areawide Manage- ment Branch and James Lund and the Planning Assistance and Policy Branch. ~~ ~d?~~ Mark A. pisano Director Water Planning Division Washington, D.C. ii ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 0 . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . Relationship of 208 Planning to 208 Management. . . . . . . 0 . . ~ 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . . . 0 . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . Requirements that Management Agencies Must Meet.......o... Questions When Designing a Management Structure.o.o....... Criteria for Effective Water Quality Management........... Institutional Change: Getting from Here tb There......... EXAMPLE ONE: ONE REGIONAL SINGLE PURPOSE OPERATING AGENCY THAT IS BOTH THE 208 PLANNING AND PRIMARY MANAGEMENT AGENCY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXAMPLE TWO: COG AS A 208 PLANNING AGENCY AND A SPECIAL PURPOSE PRIMARY REGIONAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY......... EXM1PLE THREE: A RURAL IRRIGATED FARMING REGION WITH DECENTRALIZED POINT SOURCE CONTROL................. EXAt1PLE FOUR: TWO-TIERED, MULTI-PURPOSE STRUCTURE FOR AN URBAN, INTE RS TATE AREA................. .' . . . . . . . . . . . iii Page i 1 2 2 5 7 8 10 19 25 30 ------- NOTE. ,r This document is not a replacement to the Act, the Regulations, the Guidelines or official EPA POlley Statements;' It is a supplement to these documents, showing hypothetical examples of local responses to 208 program requirements. The examples in this handbook do not constitute a uniform EPA standard of acceptability for 208 plans. Any clarification and specific conditions applicable to a local area should be discussed with the EPA Regional 208 Coordinator. iv ------- INTRODUCTION In order to implement 208 areawide plans it is necessary to set up a 208 management program which includes a structure of organizations and institutions and their responsibilities in carrying out the areawide plans. These organizations may be new ones or existing agencies of general purpose state and local' governmept", sp~ci,al districts, or multi- purpose regional agencies, or any combination of these. Agencies' functions, ,organizational structure, powers and funding are all elements of the management program. The 208 plans will describe a management pro- gram, and the governor will actually designate those agencies to carry out the plan and submit his choice of these agencies along with the 208 plan to EPA for approval within two years after 208 planning has been initiated. ' The purpose of this handbook is to provide several examples of possible water quality management programs that might apply in hypothet- ical areas. The examples are intended to show the ~ay the management structure can carry out a 208 management program composed of a series of functions on elements which should fit together and be properly coordinated. They do not provide details on the performance of any single function. The examples show how the functions of construction, financing, planning of waste water management facilities, regulation, non-point source controls and land use practices relate to one another organizationally and legally. The examples are simplified, since actual arrangements for implementing programs, operating facilities, financing and managing growth are extremely complex and will vary from region to region. By offering examples, this handbook does not mean to imply that those shorthand models presented are necessarily the best, and certainly are not the only, possible water quality alternatives. Each example' will briefly describe the water quality and institutional characteristics of the hypothetical region that existed during the 208 planning phase. The management program will be described in terms of organizations, geographical area served, powers and financing. The management program will also be described in terms of the functions within that structure such as regulatory programs, waste management ~nd overall coordination. The examples are not detailed as to technological solutions specified in the 208 plan, although, to be sure, these technical recommendations in each area will greatly influence the management program selected. While written specifically for 208 planning agencies, book can also be used by potential management agencies, which the planning agencies identify management alternatives. From 208 planning must be approached with man~gement in mind. the hand- should help the start, 1 ------- Relationship of 208 Planning to 208 Management' Management can be considered the RdoingR phase of the 208 process. In planning, wastewater management policies are set and agreed upon, then management agencies, one or more, take over and carry out these policies and plans on a day-to-day basis. Thus, planning is the designing phase and pOlicy-setting element, while management is the operational phase, when policies are ,translated into action and implemented. Planning is a continuous process which exists in tandem with management. Planning is not a two-year affair that concludes with the completion of the first plan, but rather continues to give guidance to all management agencies involved in areawide water clean-up and protection. The federal law calls for 208 plans to be reviewed each year, and while federal funding is provided for only two years, substantial funding at the start of planning is intended to spur continuing and even more essential planning in the long term. Applicants for 208 planning agency designa- tions must state their intentions to provide ~for a financially self- sustaining planning process, including annual plan update, beyond the initial 2-year period. The federal law provided funding authorization to develop and operate a continuing areawide waste treatment management planning process. The law also requires the annual state certification of the plan as consistent with applicable state basin plans. In a majority of cases, EPA expects that these responsibilities will lie with the designated planning agency. The planning agency should be given the responsibilities of evaluating the progress of plan implementation and monitoring the schedule set forth in the approved plan. The planning agency should report its findings to the management agency(ies) and the state. The findings should also be included in the annual certification procedures. Care must be taken to assure that regarded as a watch dog by the management agency's main responsibility is to report so that corrective action can be taken. the planning agency is not agency(ies). The planning to the management agency (ies) Requirements that Management Agencies Must Meet Areawide 208 planning is planning for management, and implementa- tion of approved plans is clearly mandated by Congress, both in the actual language of Section 208 and other sections as well as in the spirit of the law. EPA has emphasized Congress' requirements to ensure that 208 plans are carried out. While Congress was quite specific that 208 plans should be implemented, Section 208 allows states and localities great flexibility in designing areawide waste management systems, and EPA encourages 208 planning agencies to tailor an institutional network to its own water quality and financial needs and governmental style. 2 ------- A governor can designate one or more management agencies to carry out the plan. There is considerable latitude within the require- ments for these agencies set by Section 208 that will allow various metropolitan areas, small towns and rural areas to devise an acceptable and implementable water quality management plan. Most of the specific requirements for 208 management agencies set forth in PL 92-500 relate to the financing, construction, operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment works. These require that areawide management,'as a whole, must be able to: . design, cons~ruct and operate waste treatment works, . accept and use grants, . raise revenues and assess waste treatment charges, . incur short and long term indebtedness, . require municipalities to pay proportionate share of treatment costs, . be able to refuse wastes from municipalities or subdivisions which do not comply with provisions of an approved plan, . accept industrial wastes, set pretreatment standards and refuse industrial wastes that do not meet requirements, . be able to "manage effectively waste treatment works and related facilities". This is a more general requirement for legal, financial and organizational capability in the management of treatment works, as broadly defined to include devices for storage, treatment, recycling, reclama- tion of municipal sewage or industrial wastes. In addition to these requirements that relate to treatment works, the law includes a general requirement that pertains to the entire manage- ment program. This requirement both ensures flexibility in designing an areawide water quality system, and at the same time demands innovation on the part of 208 planners, on the part of governors who must designate management agencies, and within EPA which must approve those management agency (ies) designation and 208 plans. This requirement states that the management program must be able to carry out. the approved plan. This general feature of the law goes beyond those plan elements relating to treatment works, to ensure that all management functions called for in the 208 plan are handled effectively by some organization. This requires legal, financial and institutional capability. Also it requires that management is politically feasible, that organizations either exist, are being set up, or are likely to exist with enough power and funds to do the specified job. 3 ------- While the. particular institutional forms created by state legis- latures or by local action in response to a 208 plan might vary from region to region, the central objective of 208 planning and management will be the same -- the creation of 'competent decision-making bodies that will work together to achieve the water quality objective, at the lowest economic, social, political and environmental cost. Water quality management must provide a comprehensive and unified approach, achieving the water quality standards by mean~ tha.tare agreed ,upon by the region, itself, to be the best for the area as a whole." " . All water pollution soqrces must 'be addressed, and if not controlled, at least taken into account. All management functions must be authorized and funded, an~, perhaps the most essential ingredient, a coordinative mechanism provided. The clear aim of Congress in writing Section 208 is to overcome irrational fragmentation of responsibility, in which jobs are unnecessarily duplicated and governmental agencies sometime work at cross purposes with one another. Coordination may be achieved, procedurally, through such mechanisms as intergovernmental agreements and coordinating groups. Alternatively, coordination could be achieved by structural changes in governmental organizations, such as creation of new organizations, reorganization of existing functions, or establishing whole new areawide government. In some geographical areas and in some governmental situations where the number of local units involved is small, water quality manage- ment may be decentralized with localities constructing, operating and maintaining wastewater management facilities, zonning and regulating nonpoint sources, with only a coordinator at the areawide level acting as a planning and administrative mechanism to integrate local units. Such decentralized systems in some cases may increase responsiveness to individual public service demands, provide greater levels of. political control and, in any event, be easier to implement since they require very little institutional change. Other 208 areas, such as metropolitan regions with a great many small and conflicting political and service jurisdictions, may only be able to solve their political and financial problems by adoptinng more substantial institutional change. These areas may choose a two-tiered federated governmental structure' in which local governments are assigned key operating functions, while other policy-setting responsibilities are handled by an areawide body. Such local/areawide split of responsibility are said to take advantage of the best of local capabiities as well as area- wide approaches, achieving economies of scale with local.participation ~nd popular control. Still other areas may have already, or. choose to create, con- solidated forms of government with both local and areawide functions being performed at the regional level. Supporters of such consolidations main- tain that these arrangements produce economy in,government, greater public service coordination and integration and more efficient program admin- istration and equitable financing of public services. 4 ------- . The organizational structure ~elected to carry out the 208 plan will vary, depending on the water quality solutions called for in the plan, the history and characteristics of established governmental structures and governmental preferen~es of the people and elected officials in the planning region. . .' . - Questions When Designing a Management Program . .. . In setting uP. a wate( qu.al~~y..~ar:1C~g~~e.,~ program, these questions need to be answered:. (1) What geographical area the management area be or smaller or larger? between the task to be unit? shall each agency serve? Will the same as the 208 planning area, Is there a rational relationship performed ~~d its administering (2) What services will each organization provide? Shall. the organization be single purpose just for water quality or multi-purpose? will the organization handle water supply, air pollution control, solid wastes management, la~d use regulation, land use management, or any other programs? (3) What functions will each organization perform, what powers are needed. to perform the functions, and does the manage- ment program as a whole perform all needed assignments? In the water quality field key functions include: . continuing 208 planning (including policy guidance to management agencies, revising, updating the 208 plan, evaluation of per- formance of 208 management and the relation- ship of water quality system with other systems in the region and with state, federal governments). Will there be a separate planning agency? How will water quality relate to other planning? . facilities planning, . construction, operation and maintenance of facilities to collect, intercept, treat, dispose, reuse and recycle wastes from municipalities and industries, including stormwater management, nonpoint source runoff controls, sludge disposal or use, 5 ------- (4) . regulation of existing and new pollution sources, including nonpoint sources, permits, water quality and effluent standards, enforcement and penalty application, . financing the system, including construction, operation and maintenance, planning, administra- tion and overhead costs; setting user charges and pricing policies, . tax policies to provide subsidies or negative incentives to abate water pollution, preserve clean areas, . monitoring; ambient water quality monitoring, compliance monitoring, biological monitoring and support for the general data base, . information systems -- data gathering, storage, retrieval, analysis and dissemination, . coordination and enforcing the plan. Who will require compliance with the 208 plan? How will compliance be achieved? How will conflicts be resolved among management agencies within the same system; between management and planning functions; between the water quality management system and other systems in the same region? will basic control be local, state or federal? Should some of these functions, such as construction, be split between two or more organizations along subfunctional lines, or centralized? For example, should sewer collection lines be built and operated locally and interceptors and treatment plants be handled regionally? Will all functions be assumed immediately, or will there be an interim, partial stage, with additional functions added at several times? (5) Does the program, as a whole, address all sources of pollu- tion, including industrial, municipal and vessel point sources; stormwater runoff, including combined sewer over- flows; nonpoint sources such as runoff from farms and feedlots, forests, mines, construction sites, streets and yards? (6) Is financing adequate and assured for all needed actions, including overhead and administrative costs? 6 ------- (7) (8) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) Is financing of any regional organization or services. adequately self-sufficient to assure a regional perspective? Are there maximum opportunities for active and productive. citizen participation? (9) How are key management agency selected -- appointed, if so, at-large or by districts? If boundaries? decision-making officials by whom? Elected, if so districts, what will be the Do tOD officials of management agency(ies) serve part-time or full-time? What is the relationship between boards and their staff? How do organizations in the areawide management program get their powers--by state legislation, local referendum; service agreements signed by local governing bodies; inter- state compact~ state agency delegation of authority; Congressional action creating a federal agency or federal- interstate compact? Are new powers assigned to existing agencies or are new organizations created? How will the water quality planning and management functions be coordinated with other environmental and social activities and governmental programs in the same region? How will water quality planning and management in the 208 area be coordinated with other water management efforts of geographical areas outside the 208 region? Criteria for an Effective Water Quality Management Program In deciding these institutional issues of where to place functions and how to coordinate agencies in~o a program, judgments must first be made as to criteria for "effective" institutional networks. Criteria for assigning governmental functions might include: . Economic efficiency. Can th~ system achieve its water . quality goal at minimum cost? Does it achieve economies of scale, for example? . Equity. Are the benefits of clean water and the costs of . clean up reasonably and fairly distributed over the affected population? Are external costs, such as impacts on other. environmental problems and impacts on other services and social objectives, minimized? Are indiv~duals' right protected? 7 ------- . Political accountability. Are the agencies accessible to, accountable, to and controlled by their affected 'residents in proportion to their stake in the outcome of government~l , decisions? For example, are the agencies not d~inated by anyone special interest group? ,Is broadly-bas~d citizen participation encouraged and structured? ' '. Administrative efficiency., Has each agency been as~igned adequate powers to carry out its mission? Is the system able tO,pursue intergovernmental cooperation and reduce inter local functional conflict? Do the actors in the system have,adequate fund$? Is the structure sufficiently compatible with existing governmental institutions in the area to be ' a politically feasible instrument for performing assigned functions? Does each agency and the program as a whole have functional and a real flexibility so that all alterna- , tives and trade-offs are considered. In some i~stances these criteria need to be ranked as to their importance, for some may conflict with one another, at least in the short run. For example, political accountability may favor allocation of functions tO,smaller local jurisdiction while equity often demands attention of larger, more encompassing units. Institutional Change: Getting from Here to There Depending on the degree of institutional change recommended in a 208 plan, the transition from the existing management structure to the proposed water quality management program will require varying amounts of time and governmental effort. State or local laws may need to be enacted, or additional funding provided. State or local administrative actions may be needed, or even state constitutions revised, in order to create powers and capabilities for management agencies to implement the 208 plan. Getting from here to there is a highly individualized matter, affected by a state's constitution, state and local statutes and ordinances, political climate and preferences in specific 208 regions and fiscal considerations. The federal law requires that designated managment agency(ies) must have authority to carry out the plan, before EPA can approve the designations. The management agencies must have general authority and, at a minimum, be in the process of obtaining specific authority. The schedule in the plan must, set forth the time period to attain such authority. There is a difference between general authority and specific authority. For example, the 208 plan may call for passage of a local sediment control ordinance. One or more of the proposed management agencies have the general authority to adopt and enforce such legislation but there is no specific , legislation now on the books. In this case the management agencies can be considered to have the necessary authority to carry out the plan, but must be instituting steps to draft the specific sediment control law. 8 ------- As the 'planning process produces outputs each year, its policy guidance for-management agencies may change. 208: planners will have interim ou,tputs - after the 'first nine months, which in many' -cases will be able to feed into and improve the management 'process 'immediately. Interim outputs must~have the approval of-the state water pollution control agency and Regional Administrator of EPA. If these interim outputs direct new management -actions that can be pe~for~ed:by ~xisting' management agencies with exfsting powers, such new steps 'should be taken after -the first year. The idea'is that planning will 'begin -to improve the management system as soon as possible and each year the management system'will be increasingly strengthened and in some cases changed, as-a result of continuing 208 planning. . If the institutional change called for in the 208 plan is expected to take more than a year, such as enacting an interstate compact, it is wise for 208 'plans to develOp interim management strategies and interim authorities for management agencies. For example, a 208 plan could call for a regional special purpose agency to acquire, own, construct, operate and maintain all wastewater collection and treatment facilities in a metropolitan area. However, acquisition is to be phased over a ,20-year period, so in the interim the regional utility is set up, but initially contracts from the regional utility are let with local governments which continue to own some of their own facilities. ' If the legislative, administrative or voter action called for in the 208 plan does not occur, 208 planners must revise the plan, formu- lating a new management program that is achievable, as well as able to meet and maintain the 1983 water quality goals. For example, if a recommended, non-structural solution fails to be authorized, such as land use measures ,by loqal governments, additional structural solutions,- higher levels of waste treatment, may be needed. . The following four examples illustrate a set of hypothetical institutional structures for the continuing planning and management functions called for in the approved 208 plans. 9 ------- ~~ro~~[~ EXAMPLE ONE ONE REGIONAL SINGLE PURPOSE OPERATING AGENCY THAT IS BOTH . THE 208 PLANNING AND PRIMARY MANAGEMENT AGENCY. The Area This intra-state metropolitan area of one million people has two large local governments and seven smaller suburban and rural jurisdictions. It is a water-rich region, with coastal and fresh waters, some of which are clean, others polluted and classified as Wwater quality" segments. The 208 planning agency, the Clean Water District, is a regional agency that provides wastewater management services, on a wholesale basis, to the local governments and sanitary districts and industries of the metropolitan area. Wastewater sources are mainly point sources, about evenly divided . between industries and sewered domestic wastes. Stormwater. discharges into sewers are a problem. There is also troublesome urban runoff carrying debris, chemicals and bacteria into a lake in the city. Agri- cultural wastes and forestry sediments flow into the watershed 'used as public water supplies. Areawide Waste Management Program The governor designated the Clean Water District as the primary 208 management agency, the same regional water quality agency which prepared the initial 208 plan and is the continuing planning agency. The District performs most functions used to control point sources in the region. The State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the lead agency for managing non-point sources, while planning for their control and some management duties are shared with the Clean Water District. The District is a municipal corporation for the metropolitan area, authorized by the state legislature and approved by local voters on referendum. The corporation is governed by a Board of Directors composed of local elected and appointed officials: . the elected county executive of the central county, . one member from each county commissioner district who is an elected county councilman, . one non-elected person from each participating county, chosen by the board of commissioners of each component county containing 15,000 or more persons, 10 continued. . . . ------- ~m~~~~~ . the mayor of each participating city over 15,000 persons or, if none exists, an elected member of city council selected by the county, . one member representing all component cities less than 15,000 persons selected by and from the .mayors of these ,towns, . one additional member selected by the city council of each component city of 15,000 or more persons, chosen from city council until all councilmen are members and thereafter to be selected from other officers of such city, . one member chosen by all sewer districts or water districts which operate a sewer system and is a component part of the District, . the Board Chairman selected by the other members of the council who does not hold public office or work for any component city or county. These members serve at the pleasure of the body which selected them. The Board"is advised by a Water Pollution Control Advisory Committee, which is composed of one person appointed from each city or county which operates a sewer system and one person chosen by each board of commissions of each sewer or water district in the region. These persons serve at the pleasure of the appointing bodies and elect their own chairman. The District.also has a full-time staff of 70 persons, including an Executive Director that is hired by and serves at the pleasure of the Board. Staff includes planners, engineers, lawyers, scientists and public adminis- trators and a variety of non-profesisonals. The District maintains ten information and complaint centers in various sectors of the region, including one in each local governmental area. Point Source Related Functions The powers of this municipal corporation include planning, acquisi- tion, construction, operation, maintenance and regulation of facilities for sewage disposal, stormwater drainage, industrial or commercial pollutants. Sewer facilities owned by a county or city or special district may be ac- quired or used by the municipal corporation only with the consent of the legislative body of that unit. These units may conveyor lease their facilities to the corporation or contract for their joint use. The District can require local governments and special districts to discharge collected wastes to the District. The District fixes rates and charges, sets standards for construction of local water pollution abatement facilities and approves plans for construction of facilities which are connected to the facilities of the District. Four new sewage treatment plants have been built to replace 28 older facilities. The region is completely interconnected with trunklines. continued. . . 11 ------- ~~ro~~[~ Some of the facilities judged too small to be efficient for waste treatment . are used for stormwater storage and connected to the four treatment plants. Other lagoon plants and outmoded facilities were phased out altogether. The District provides some advanced waste treatment, secondary treatment at some plants, using land disposal of ~ludge in, strip-mined areas, and building stormwater catch basins and computer control of flows into, through, and out of the system in order to maximize facilities' efficiency and minimize impacts on the environment. It provides these services on a wholesale basis to all sewered municipalities and most of the area's industr ies. . . .. The District may acquire and provide facilities for .local collection of sewage or stormwater in an area that has no local public sewer facilities. It may also do so in areas with local services, if the local legislative body approves, or without local approval, if the local governing body has failed for six months to correct a water pollution problem as specified by the state Department of Environnmental Protection. The District regulates discharges to its facilities, which in- cludes setting effluent treatment requirements, standards of performance, pretreatment requirements, user chargers and industriai cost. recovery system. It requires all conditions of the National Permit Discharge . Elimination System permits issued to the District or its component agencies to be met. Violation of reguLations can result in civil penalties and fines. . The District issues revenue bonds, which are financed by user charges. The local units levy the District's service charge on communities and companies, which is determined so that communities and industries pay their proportionate share of construction, operation, maintenance and overhead of. its services, includirig continuing 208 planning costs. It may also structure its fees as effluent charges. Sewage, stormwaters and com- mercial and industrial waste control are. all financed in this way. The District also dries, packages and sells its sludge. The 208 plan, approved by localities, the governor and EPA calls for all existing and new commercial and industrial sources along the harbor to connect to the sewer system, eliminating any direct discharges into coastal waters. The District itself is the only remaining major source discharging effluent with a high degree of treatment into the coastal waters. Discharges from vessels carrying oil and hazardous materials are regulated by the State Department of Environmental Protect~on, EPA and the u.S. Coast Guard. Pleasure craft discharges are regulated by the State DEP. The District sets up and maintains the regional water quality and . related lands information system. It monitors water quality, its own and others' effluents and non-point flows, and biological systems in the 208 region. It also monitors discharges to its system for compliance with regulations. It also collects land use, water supply and other relevant data, computerizes it, and retrieves it for the use of the District, local cont1nuea. 12 ------- I ~~~I~~~ governments, state and federal agencies, and private individuals or companies. All information is available on request, and at cost to the applicant. The District also analyzes the data and disseminates it in a variety of ways, including through the mass media, in booklets, reports, movies, seminars, meetings and briefings for governmental and private groups. Non-~oint Source Functions The District's 208 plan describes, evaluates and sets policy for all high priority non-point sources in the region, including agricultural erosion, animal wastes, and pesticides runoff~ erosion from construction sites in . forestry areas and urban runoff. Operating agencies include local govern- ments, the district, state and federal agencies. The District drafts model ordinances based on statewide "Best Management Practices" for control of agricultural and urban runoff, while local governments are the major. operating agencies, adopting and enforcing these requirements. The District also recommends to local governments proper land use development patterns for incorporation by local planning and zoning bodies. The District comments on local zoning and subdivision controls and local land management practices. 208 planners also recommend. to local pub~i~.wq~ks departments streetcleani~g methods and schedules. The District prepares an urban drainage plan to control flows into the major affected lake in the region, and local governments implement this plan. If localities fail to implement this plan and a substantial water quality problem results, the District can step in and perform the needed services, construction or operations. Land management and runoff controls in state forestry areas are regulated by the State Forestry Service, located in the Department of Environmental Protection. The state and, federal forestry services also provide technical assistance to private operators and require proper' land management practices on state and federal lands. For example, design of forest roads on public lands is regulated to minimize erosion in sensitive watersheds. Land use planning and regulatory powers are exercised mainly by . local governments, with the advice and recommen~ations of the District. How- ever, any land development proposed in the region that can have a major impact on water quality goals and on achievement of the 208 plan is reviewed and can be vetoed by the District, if the developmment is not in con- . formance with enforceable provisions of the adopted plan - suc~ as waste load allocations. The District has 30 days to act, or concurrence is assumed. Coordination The orchestration of all participants in the water quality managemeni program is provided in the region by the District, tnrough its 208 planning, ~ point source regulation, and participation. in A-95 review of applications for federal grants. . continued. . . 13 ------- ~mro~~[~ The 208 plan sets water quality and effluent goals and strategies. Each year the plan sets performance standards and annual output requirements for all involved governmental units and major discharging industries and non-point sources in the system. At the end of each year,the 208 planners evaluate performance of participating governmental agencies and the manage- ment program as a whole. This data is published and feeds back to the planning process and the formulation of annual output requirements for the following year. The 208 plan identifies the State Department of Environmental Protection as the coordinator for non-point source management, which includes several regional agencies in the 208 area, local governments, several state and federal agencies. Strengths and Weaknesses The special purpose regional agency, as the lead water quality planning and management agency, can achieve economies of scale in the con- struction and operation and management of point source control systems. Thus it rates high on economic efficiency in the performance of its single function. However, in limiting its concern only to water quality, and primarily to structural solutions, it may be neglecting some ~ajorinter- connections between water quality and air pollution, or solid wastes pro- blems, or economic development, transportation, housing or other social objectives. .Because its powers are primarily structurally related, its planning and actions may favor such solutions to those non-structural measures that local and state governments wish to carry out, which are more difficult to achieve. . When planning is performed by the operational agency, planning may tend to favor those solutions -- primarily structural -- that the planning agency also performs. On the other hand, the close coordination of planning with operations within the same agency, increases the likelihood of 208 plan implementation and strengthens the impact planning makes on operations. Cities of special purpose regional agencies contend that political control is weak, that the governing body of the agency is appointed for a long term, and citizen control can only be exercised indirectly, through the local government. officials who appoint them. Robert Wood calls these special agencies "advantageous tQ the governmental process rather than tog the individual".* On the other hand, because the Board is appointed for a six-year term, it can take a truly regional view and not be controlled by parochial, frequently changing local governmental interests, achieving the most equitable as~ignment of costs and benefits throughout the region. Th~ management program maintains a local control over land use decisions, while sharing power over key developments with the regional water quality agency. However, coordination point with non-point controls is not strong, depending on the regional agency and the state agency working closely together, with few sanctions if they fail to do so. The state, with its powers to certify the 208 plan each year, adopt and enforce water quality standards, is a key decision-maker in the management program. * -A Division of Powers in Metropolitan Areas", Metropolis Against Itself, p. 61). cont:1nuea . . . 14 ------- ~~~~~~~ In summary, the Clean Water District is strong on economic efficiency but weak on coordination of water quality with other goals, on coordination of point with non-point source controls, and on political accountability of the administrating agency. continued. . . 15 ------- ~m~~~[~ Example One One' Reg~'pnal Single Purpose Operating Ag,ency that is Both tJ)e 208 Planning and Primary Hanagement Agency SCOPE SOURC,E OF FINANCING All Point and point Sources 208 Region Non- in Service Charges for Waste Treat- ment 1. 208 PU,.NNIHG ~~~!'E£ RElJ\TED FUl;CPIONS -----~..._- Clean Water District Prepares local urban . drainage plans; tech- nical planning "sst. to local govts. on water quality; drafts model local ordinances, data ~hering II. WATER POLLUTION SOURCE TECHNICAL SOLUTION PROVIDED IN 20.~ PL!~ POINT SOURCES --';-se\1e~unicipal and industrial wastes Collect ~..astes Tn'at, disp~s.~, reuse wastes . Direct InC!us- trial Discharges Adequate Private Treatment . Septic tanks Some must connect to cewers Better site ap- proval 208 HANAGEI'.ENT HANAGEHENT ACTION FEQUIREfJ flY 208 PI,T\I.~ IIANAGEI1EN'l' AGE NfL-.._- Plan, finance, ..:......_--- Local govts., construct, O&H sanitary districts Regulate discharges and_Clean \~ater District* sewer use Plan, f:i.nnnC'c, con- --.-. Clean l'late." District struct, O&M Regulate .discharges - State Depl. of Environ- ment Protection (DEI') Regulate discharges - Clean \':at<~r. District thl'ough permits, pre- treat sti:lnda:rds Regulate thru cfflucnt-,- Sti'.te DE:r & water quality stan- dards Regulate by fh:cal -..-.- Clean "'ate!: Dist:d.c:t F::i~ing I?olic~' Regulate siting loca- _J,ocal govt.s., Clean tion Water District Flan, finance, con- __Clean I'later District stn1ct, O&N Regulate location, -- Clean "iJler nistrict design State Health Dept. lA1cal Zonil:s Board continued. 16 ------- WATER POLLUTION SOURCE . Storm Water . Vessels NON-POINT SOURCES o Agriculturq.l Runoff o Erosion from Forestry, Areas COMPREHENSIVE FUNCTIONS Example One (Continued) TECHNICAL SOLUTION PROVIDED IN 208 PLAN Construct catch basins, use small existing treatment plants for storage; computer manage- ment of flows thru col- lection & treatment systems. Design requirements for new systems emphasizing on-site detention Control oil & hazardous materials Install & use waste col- lectors on pleasure craft Improved land management practices Pesticides Use & Better Land Management Better private manage- ment of road construc- tion; cutting practices Better public manage- ment of parks, other public lands ' MANAGE~mNT ACTION REQUIRED BY 208 PLAN ~m~I~~~ Hl\NAGE~N'l' AGENCY Plan', finance, con- - Clean Water District struct, O&M Regulate construction - Local Governments of new systems Regulate Clean up State DEP State DEPt State Harbor Authority State DEP Soil Conservation District Clean Water District Land Use Planning - Local Governments Clean Water District 17 State DEP State Ag. Dept. State Ag. Dept.; Forestry Service Regulate Manage, construct, - State Parks Dept. maintain facili- Bureau of Public ties L:mds Ordinance to require conservation plans Regulate Technical Asst. It Establish, main- _Clean Water District tain information system Regulate forest, road construction o Monitor water qual- -Clean Water District ity, point & non- State DEP Point discharges; Discharges to treat- ment system continued ------- ~~ro~~[~ Example One (Continu8d) MANAGE~NT ACTION REQUIRED BY 208 PLAN RELATED FUNCTION COMPREHENSIVE FUNCTIONS (Continued) . Provide technical as- - Clean Water Distri'ct sistance to local State DEP governments . Coordinates all management agen- cies; Monitors compliance.with plan Clean Nater District . Manpower training - Clean Water Distr ict for own staff, local govts. industry * Primary Manaqp.ment Aqency for Point Sources 18 ------- ~ mro~~[~ . EXAMPLE '!WO COG AS A 208 PLANNING AGENCY AND A SPECIAL PURPOSE PRIMARY REGIONAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY The Area The 208 region is an intrastate, middle-sized metropolitan area, with a total population of 150,000, serving ten local governments. Included is a middle-sized city, suburban areas and rural farming areas, located on the coast, with a major river basin and a large, clean lake used for public water supply and recreation. The designated 208 planning agency is the council of governments for the region, a voluntary regional association of local governmental officials, with planning powers, A-95 review and technical assistance to local governments regarding land use and other planning. The Areawide Management Program The COG is the designated agency for continuing 208 planning, and receives funds for this as specified in the 208 plan, as a percentage of the user charges assessed by the operating agency. The operating agency is the Metropolitan Water Management Agency (Metro), a regional service agency, with limited governmental powers to supply water and intercept, treat and dispose or reuse wastewater, on a wholesale basis. Local governments build and operate wastewater .co11ection lines and water supply facilities. Regional Facilities Service Metro was authorized by the state legislature in 1965, when local wastewater treatment was not available but beginning to be required by the state. Localities voted at that time to either join or not join the regional system, and all but two decided to join. Those two built and continue to operate their own treatment facilities under the 208 plan, but must meet the requirements and specifications in the plan for levels of treatment, size of and timing of additions to treatment works, operation procedures, timing and location of discharges, stormwater and combined sewer overflows, etc. If these localities fail to comply with the plan, Metro can, on its own initiative, perform the necessary construction or management services, and bill the community. Boundaries of the Metro are the same as that of COG, and of the 208 region. Although the wastewater facilities are provided by a regional system, the treatment plants are locally placed, but regionally managed and operated. Septic tanks continue in use in rural areas. The Board of Directors of Metro are members of COG's Board. The Board of Directors are elected to f~ve-year terms one from each of the cont:1nuea . . . 19 ------- ~~~~~[~ City Councils of each participating local government. and elect their own chairman. . They serve part-time Metro' buiids, owns, operates and maintains interceptors, treatment plants, stormwater control facilities, sludge disposal and reuse facilities for municipal and industrial wastewater. It regulates the quality and timing of discharges into its system from individual sources and imposes user charges proportionately on 10 local governments to reflect the costs of construction, maintenance, and administration, including continuing 208 planning. These user charges finance revenue bonds which are issued by Metro~ . " " .All water quality and waste discharge monitoring is performed by 'Metro, which:acts as a subcontractor to COG for gathering such data for the 208 planning process. Such water quality data is stored and retrieved and made available to the public through Metro. Metro also conducts man- power training and research related to its facilities responsibilities. Seepage from septic tanks into the lake used as a public water" supply has been a problem, and the homes around the lake have been required to hook up to a newly constructed sewer. This requirement has been implemented through a state delegation of authority to Metro. The sewer was financed ii1partby the whole region,which receives benefits in the form of water supplies from the lake. . , Also to protect the lake from non-point source runoffs, Metro was given permitting authority over new land developments. Anyone proposing to' construct around the lake, including road construciton, must first secure a Metro permit, by establishing that the discharges will not harm the quality of the lake. . , coG Planning" " . 'COG conducts 208, regional air quality, transportation and land use planning. For example, it has prepared, in cooperation with the coastal zone planning staff for the area, an emergency oil pollution control plan for the 'harbor and coastal areas and identified key vulnerable fisheries in the salt waters that merit particular protection by local governments, Metro' and the state. Powers to implement such plans are limited to A-95 review of applications for federal grants. COG also certifies applications for was~ewater discharge permits, which are issued by the state water pollution control agency, and applications for EPA construction grants, that they are in conformance with the 208 plan. COG provides technical assistance to local governments on land use planning and zoning. All local governments, except for center-city, rely on COG planners for all land use planning. Non-Point Sources This 208 region is located in a state that has pre-empted planning for non-point sources. The state is also the coordinating and enforcing government in th~ management system for non-point source control. The Metro is designated by the state 208 non-point source plan as a major 20 continued. . . ------- ~m~I~~~ operating agency. Metro builds drains and catch basins for stormwater runoff control, and regulates flows through the treatment facilities. Local governments, state and federal agencies are the other operating agencies. Coordination For point source management, Metro is designated the primary operat- ing and coordinating agency, although some resolutions of conflicting roles between Metro and local governments are resolved in COG's 208 planning. process. If conflicts occur between Metro and COG or between these regional agencies and local governments that cannot be resolved locally, .the state water pollution control agency is the final authority, with permits grant sanctions, and mandamus proceedings. For non-point source manage- ment, the state is the coordinator and conflict arbiter among parties in the management structure. Thus, the main coordinator of the non-point source management is the State Water pollution control Agency. Strengths and Weaknesses An obvious drawback of this system is that the individual actors are not regularly and strongly tied together into an integrated network, but continue in large part to pursue their separate functions. The' primary operating agency, Metro, domirtates the regional water quality field, having a larger, more expert staff with greater political support than COG, which is supposed to design and ensure coordination of the system. In negotiations with COG, Metro usually prevails. If Metro disagrees wi~h the plan's provisions, it will delay, seek plan revisions, or contravene the plan's recommendation. The only recourse COG has is to seek state action to block the move, which happens only rarely and only when the vio- lation is a major one over Which the .state or EPA has some sanction. It must involve a pending NPDES permit, a construction grant application, a violation of permit conditions or a water quality standard, before state or federal enforcement action is possible. Planning is separated from the operating agency, which means that the structurally-based operational function do not dominate, the planning proces~, but also means that on occasion the plans are not implemented. Because the state performs non-point source difficult to integrate the point source planning of work. Coordinating agreements or contracts between alleviate this integration problem. planning, it is . the COG with the state's the COG and,;.state could . . Metro, as an organizational arrangement, ranks low on politial accountability. There is no direct electoral control for the public, but only through the indirect process of electing local officials who chose board members. Metro has a high degree of financial independence, SQ that it can pursue regional facilities strategies, even in the face of local . parochial opposition. 'However, when this fiscal independence is comb~ned with low political accountability, the result may be troublesome. An advantage of this system is that 'it is highly compatible with existing structures. Therefore, it is not difficult to establish and 21 continued. . . ------- ~mro~~[~ maintain such a system, politically. Also, Metro ranks high on economic efficiency -- able to maximize. economies of scale and equitable distribution of treatment costs in the region. 22 continued. . . ------- ~~~~~[~ Example Two COG as a 2'08 Planning Agency and a Special Purpose Primary Regional Management Agency 1. --- ~ All Point Sources All Non-Point Sources SOURCE OF FINANCING Percentage of us~r Cha,rges Collected' by Metro State & federal revenues 208 PLANNING PLI\NNING AGENCY RELATED PLANNING FUNC'UONS Council of Govts. planning, local for. Compo land use Tech. Asst.. to govt. planning J,and use Regional air quality' Trans.,coastal zone planning State DEP State Water Quality 11anagement planning POInT SOURCES . Sewered munic. industrial wastes e Direct dis- chargc's of industry o Septic Tanks . Storn! ~Iater II. 208 MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL SOLUTION IN 208 Collect Treat, dispose, rcuse Adequate treatment Reduced waste genera- tion Heok up to sewer around lake Require land develop- ments around lake to have developm~nt permit Construct catch basiJ?s Regulate fle~!s thru treatment plants Design reguirementsfor new systems emphasizing on-site detention MANAGE¥£NT SOLUTION IN 208 PLAN MANAGE~NT AGENCY plan, finance struct, O&M Regulate con- - r~ocal govts. Metro. Plan, finance, con- -- Metro struct, O&M 2 local govts. Regulate discharges - State DEP and sewer use' Local ~ovt:. CE,rtify for federal, _COG state conscruction grants Regulate thru p~r- mits (certify) Issue permits _COG state DEP Plan, conztruct,- Hetro finance, O&M Regulate Metro Construct, finance, - I'.etro plan, O&M 2 local govts. aegulate construction - Local (;overni.lcnls of new systc:-,s continued. 23 ------- ~m.~I~[~ Example Two (Continuec) NON-POINT SOURCES TECHNICAL.SOLUTION IN 208 MANAGEMENT SOLUTION IN 208 PLAN MANAGEMENT AGENCY . Agricultural Runoffs Locate in proper site Regulate (zoning)------ State DEP** Lot"'al govts. Better l~nd mallagement Technical Assistance - State Agricultural Dept. . Construction Runoffs Better land management Regulate Local go\'ts. COMPREHEN5IVh FUNCTIONS . Regulate siting, discharges of all developments around lake .8 Coordinate all point source control thru A-95 review, 208 plan, certify permits and grants evaluation compliance Witll plan; schievement . Information systems all monitoring . Land use decisions otller than around lake Metro COG COG Metro Local govts. * Metro is primary management agency foi point ** State DEP is primary. coordinator, management for non-point sources. sources. agency 24 ------- ~~~~~[~ EXAMPLE THREE A RURAL IRRIGATED FARMING REGION WITH DECENTRALIZED POINT SOURCE CONTROL The Area This 208 region is composed of two rural counties including four towns in a Western wat~r ~ights ~tate. Irrigated farming is responsible for many jobs, as well as most of the water pollution, of the region. Total dissolved solids build up with repeated use for irrigation as water flows through the basin, and concentrations instream, as well as pesticides, are very high. To complicate the problem, water flows in one river basin in the area are very low most of the year, providing very little waste assimila- tive capacity. The water rights law, in which a farmer must make con- tinuing beneficial use of his allotment of water in order to maintain his future rights to this allotment, encourages over-irrigation, and exacerbates water pollution. . The four towns in the region are located considerable distanoes from one another and each of the three larger communities has its own treat- ment plant. The fourth depends on septic tanks. The designated 208 planning agency is the COG for the region and its boundaries are the same as the 208 area. The Areawide Management Program The COG has concentrated most of its 208 planning on non-point source problems. The plan called for a mix of management, legal and structural solutions, assigning COG some coordinative and technical assistance responsibilities but assigning the major job of enforcing the plan and ensuring its implementation to the state water quality agency. The plan called first for a review of the Water Rights Law, so that farmers would not be required to establish future use of water by over withdrawals. One of the alternatives suggested for this review recommended that water use rights be apportioned to those requesting water through a permit system administered by the State Department of Natural Resources. This agency would impartially allot water rights according to demonstrated need for water and would consider the reasonableness of the proposed use, including the environmental impact. . Pesticides use is regulated by the State Department of Environmental Protection. The 208 plan calls for farming areas to line their irrigation ditches to prevent ground water pollution, and also to preserve maximum possible flows instream. This requirement would be implemented through the adoption of statewide "Best Management Practices". Financing o! these structures is provided by state and federal water pollution control. agencies, through a new program which combines partial grants and long-term, interest-free loans to farmers. . continued.. 25 ------- ~mro~~[~ . COG is designated the continuing 208 planning agency, and coordinates all point and non-point sourceS and management agencies in the process. It also has established a Farmers Service Bureau to provide technical assistance and information. to irrigating farmers, for the control of erosion and prevention of overuse and runoff of pesticides. This Bureau works in conjunction with the U.S. S6il Conservation Service, the Bureau of Reclama- tion and the state Department of Agriculture. COG is composed of local elected officials. It has established a 208 advisory committee that recommends and comments on 208 plans, and management actions. Point Sources The coordinator for point source management is COG. By inter local service agreement, COG was assigned power to coordinate the discharges and provide administrative services, as well as planning, for the muni- cipalities. This agreement is a voluntary agreement on the part of the localities~ the affected parties may withdraw when dissatisfied. However, these communities must meet the guidelines set forth in the 208 plan, whether or not they sign the service agreement. The economies of regional administration, coupled with local control over facilities, have persuaded all affected communities to participate. Construction. of septic tanks is regulated by the state Health Department to conform with the requirements set forth in the 208 plan. COG performs monitoring of irrigation return flows and instream water quality, as well as evaluating performance of all management agencies. Coordination Coordination at the areawide level depends on the COG and its 208 planning, while plan enforcement depends on the State Water Quality Agency. If individual farmers or local governments fail to comply with the plan, enforcement action must be initiated or sanctions applied by that state agency, or a sister state agency, such as the Agriculture Department. Strengths and Weaknesses One of the vital links in the management structure, the possible revision of the Water Rights Law, will be difficult to achieve, and in any event will likely take several years. Other plan elements are only recom- mendations and no sanctions are authorized for the primary management agnecy -- the COG -- fo~ non-compliance. Persuasion and technical assistance remain its strongest tools. Integrated management of municipal discharges is tenuous, since the localities can pullout of the service agreement at any time. COG thus may not be able to implement long-range plans, making such an arrange- ment weak on economic efficiency criterion and maybe also on equity grounds, since redistribution of costs and benefits may result in a locality can- celling its contract and pulling out of the administrative coordinating. system. Knowing this, the COG may select methods that appeal to the lowest common denominator of the localities. con 26 ------- ~~~~~Q~ Because COG also has other assignments, if only in a planning con- text, it can integrate water quality with other environmental social and economic concerns. It does, however, add another layer of government onto local and state governments. Also, COG as an alliance of local governmental officials can rarely take a truly regional perspective, for every member speaks for some local interest. However, since selected officials parti- cipate on COG, political accountability is increased. A final strength of the management system for point sources is that .it is easy to establish. Procedural action and not structural action is all that is required. On the non-point side, far reaching legislative change is required to consider potential revisions of the Water Rights Law of the state. A constitutional amendment will probably be required, as well as changes in the pOlitical perspective of elected officials, and standard operating practices of farmers and other water users in the state. Implementation of non-point source control depends on the desires of the state and national legislatures, for structural solutions to polluted irrigation return flows will not likely be undertaken without financial aid. 27 continued. . . ------- ~m~~~~~ Example.Three A Rural Ir~ated Farming Region with Decentralized Point Source Control ~ RELATED PLANNING FUNCTIONS All Point, non- point sources ~2g~~I~~ . r.. 208 P.LANNING PLANNING AGENCY Point source plan- ning funded by per- centage of user charges collected by 3 local govts.1 Non- point funded by state & ad-valorem taxes on farms. COG WATER POLLUTION SOURCE Point Sources . Sewered Hunic. Wastes . Septic Tanks Nonpoint Sources o Irrigation return flows II. TECHNICA1~ SOLUTION IN 208 PLAN Collect, treat, reuse, dispose Approval of site, type Do not overirrigate Better land management practices Better pesticides use. . 208 MANAGEHENT MANAGEMENT ACTION 1N 208 PLAN MANAGE~IENT AGENCY Plan, finance, con-- Local govts. struct, O&M Administration, con- - COG. trol of practices, timing & location of discharge Regulate State Water Quali ty Agency.. Regulate State Health Dept. Revise Water Rights set by Constitution Establish water use permit Technical Asst. Information Regulate Law- f?tate Legis., Voters ----- State Legis., State Dept. of Nat. Resources COG,' State Ag. Dept., federal agencies . State \iater Quality Agency COG, State Ag. Dept., Feaeral ag~ncies 28 Technical Asst. continued. ------- ~mro~~[~ . Example Three (Continued) WATER pOLLUTION SOURCE . TECHNICAL SOLUTION IN 208 PLAN . MANAGE~reNT ACTION IN 208 PLAN MJ\NAGEHEnT AGENCY Nonpoint Sources . Irrigation return flows (Continued) Line Irrigation Ditches Finance State Water Quali ty 1,gCllCY, Fcdcrill EPA Build, maintain Farmers COMPRElffiNSIVE FUNCTIONS . Monitors water quality, discharges . Monitors compliance with 208 plan Evaluates management agency performance . Certiries for A-95, NPDES permits & construction . Chief enforcer of 208 plan provisions COG COG grants in l:egion COG State '''Iater Quality AgenCY COG e Establishes & maintains water quality information system * COG is primary managemant agency for point sources, establ.ished by interlacel service a.greement. **State Water Quality Agency is primary management agency & enforcer of 208 plan' I 29 ------- ~mro~~[~ EXAMPLE FOUR 'lWo-TIERED, MULTI-PURPOSE STRUCTURE FOR AN URBAN, INTERSTATE AREA The Area This 208 region is an interstate area, including two states and ten local governments. The designated 208 planning agency is a council of governments for the region, which exercises comprehensive planning and adivsory powers and A-95 review of local application for federal grants. Three million people live in this metropolitan area, which is drained by one major riverbasin and several small feeder streams. The river is used by municipalities as public water supply, but many uses are impaired by severe pollution resulting primarily from sewered municipal wastes from the fast-growing population, as well as from urban runoff from streets and yards, commercial areas and construction sites. The area has other environmental problems. Air pollution and solid waste management problems are rapidly accelerating and those solutions depend also on effective regional 'planning and management. The major obstacles to adequate water supply and waste management are institutional and financial, rather than technical and engineering. There is a highly fragmented pattern of governmental organizations for plan- ning and service delivery. Local and state wastewater, water supply organizations work at cross-purposes with one another. Communities' have also failed to approve the necessary funding to adequately handle the rapidly growing wastes. The 208 plan called for a major effort, including significant institutional rearrangement to meet and maintain the 1983 water quality requirements~ When issuing its 208 report, the COG consolidated its water quality recommendations with other institutional recommendations developed in other plans to recommend a new governmental structure that could efficiently and effectively handle a range of environmental needs. The Areawide Management Program The institutional structure selected for the region is a two-tiered federated, governmental system for water quality and water supply, air pollution control and solid waste management. At the areawide level an elected Metropolitan Environmental Council plans and sets policies for matters of areawide environmental concern, such as land use planning, con- ducted by all political jurisdictions in the urban region. Boundaries are similar to those previously designating the COG. The new system replaces the areawide environmental planning performed by the COG, taking over all its existing responsibilities primarily environmental regional planning and technical assistance. continued. . . 30 ------- ~~ro~~[~ An Environmental Facilities Service, the regional operating arm of the areawide Council acquires, owns, builds, operates, maintains waste- water and solid waste management and water supply facilities. These services are supplied on a who~esale basis to affected communities. Thus, at the regional level, policy and planning responsibilities are separated organizationally from the operating agency. Local governments continue to perform local functions: collection of wastewater and refuse, and water distribution. . Metropolitan Environmental Council The areawide organization was created by interstate compact. The Metropolitan Environmental Council is the governing board for the region, consisting of 10 members, one from each of the participating local juris- dictions, elected at-large by these jurisdictions to serve for six-year overlapping terms. Council members serve full-time and elect their own chairman. Council decisions are made by a 100 vote weighted voting system, based on the population in each local government. Also included on the council are a federal member, one member from each state and one member from each major areawide o~erating .agen9Y, such as the tran~portation agency, all of whom serve in a non-voting capacity. The Council sets all areawide policies for wastewater management, water supply, solid waste and air pollution control. All decisions. affecting these matters of areawide impact made by the Environmental Facilities Service and Qther areawide agencies must be reviewed by the Council, such as location, size and timetable for new treatment plants. Actions of the Service and other regional agencies can be vetoed by the Council if they conflict with regional environnmental goals or plans. Local governmental actions can be postponed for 60 days, and the Council can ask the two affected state legislatures to review local areawide disputes that are not locally resolved. Environmental Service The regional Environmental Service, performing under the super- vision of the Council, will be, wi thin 10 years, the sole agency for the. area providing its environental services. It acquires, designs, con- structs, operates and maintains water quality facilities (interceptors, stormwater facilities, tre~tment plants, reuse and disposal facilities) as well as solid waste treatment, disposal and recycling facilities and water treatment and supply facilities. It collects and manages, from a central point, whatever local agen8ies and sanitary districts discharge. In acquiring facilities of local governments, those communities are given a credit against future user charges for existing. facilities. The Service also assumes the local debt on those facilities. The Council finances the construction, operation, administration and overhead including planning costs of the areawide system. The ex- penses of the Council and the Environmental Service are both covered. It can issue revenue .and general obligation bonds, financed through user fees. 31 continued. . . ------- ~~~~~~~ It receives and uses state and federal grants. Fees are set on a wholesale, basis, with local governments paying their proportionate share of the cost of treating wastes and supplying its water. Costs of providing capacity. reserved for future use are included also. Some system components may benefit the entire metropolitan region and in these cases, the cos~s are spread region-wide. . In the water quality management field, the Service monitors discharges into and out of its system to maintain pretreatment standards and regulates discharges into its own facilities. Initially the Service operates by contract with existing waste management agencies and eventually buys and operates all of these facilities. The Service maintains locally based complaint centers to hear and solve public complaints about service delivery. . The Service has a part-time Board of Directors appointed by the Council. Its budget and key decisions are also set by Council. The. ~ouncil is advised by an Advisory Board which consists of members with a variety o~ technical expertise, including planners, lawyers, engineers, bankers, scientists, political scientists, that rep~esent the spectrum of affected interests' in the region -- environmentalists, regulated industries, chambers of commerce, etc. . . . i. ,~ "4 . ,. ...: The Council is the continuing 208 planning agency, and also conducts regional air quality planning, and. planning for. water supply and solid waste management. Its full-time staff monitors environmental quality, pol- lution effects in the community, and discharges to the environment from the Service, and any individual point and non-point sources discharging to the environment. The Council evaluates regularly and on a formal basis the impacts of local governments, the Service and all other members of the water and waste management system. . . .' Every year the Council revises the 208 plan, and issues policy,..,. ',n guidance to all operating agencies impacting environmental protection. ' within the region. The Council is the policy decision-maker for the environmenta~ management program, resolving conflicts among local govern- ments, and among regional agencies, as well, when the conflict has a major impact on the environmental protection of the region. The Council certifies applicants for NPDES permits which are issued by the two' states and certifies tha~ applicants for federal and state grants which affect water supply and environmental protecton conform to areawide 208 and other plans. In addition to' the Environmental Service, other regional operating agencies may exist, such as for transportation, or be provided later by amendment to the compact, such as for housing or parks and . recreation. The Council conducts comprehensive land use and development planning, for various environmental, social and economic goals. An., integrated, development guide is prepared and periodically reviewed and, revised. The development guide for land use, economic developmen~, . public facilities and services, govern all affected areawide agencies, and is advisory to local governments. In the process, policy statements are issued and annual guidance for'programs develpped to encour~ge orderly growth and 32 continued ------- ~~ro~~[~ development within the public a~~ priv~te sectors. Land Use Decisions Land use planning and regulatory controls are spli~ between local governments and the areawide Council, with local governments having exclu-' sive control over decisions of a completely local nature. The Council has power to review and veto locally. issued, permits if they will have a major areawide impact affecting the environmental responsibilities assigned the Council. Also, the Council ,must certify before the state agencies can 'issue an air quality indirect source pe~mitot,a wastewater discharge permit that the' resulting'environmental impac't, cpnforms to the areawide plans. . Similarly certification. of :LocaJ.. applications ,for federal and state grants is required before the A-95 and environmental impact process can be . said to be completed. Non-Point Sources . This land use power is the major control the Council exercises over non-point sources, ~s well as location of point sources. The Council also in its 209 and solid waste planning develops strategies for control of erosion, pesticides use and urban runoffs from yards and' streets. Local governmental and state agencies are the principle management agencies to implement these strategies. . The Council formulates .model land management practices to control erosion. New state laws in each ~ta~e require local governments to adopt and enforce erosion control ordinances, o~ the states' Departments of Environmental Quality are authorized to adopt one for the locality. The two states' Departments of Agriculture, regulate the use of pesticides and with the aid of the U.S. Department 'of Agriculture encourage proper land management and pesticides use in the region through education efforts and technical assistance in suburban areas and to the few farmers in the region. . The state Highway Departments are requested to use lesser amounts of snow and ice control chemicals and to require erosion controls of all highway construction contractors. 'Facilities for storm runoff into storm and sanitary sewers are responsibility of the Environmental Facilities Service for the region. combined sewers are being separated, some catch-basins constructed and control of wastewater flows through treatment plants is scheduled and \ controls to ensure adequate waste removal. the Some Coordination "Coordination'among water quality management agencies is very strong in the two-tiered system, with the Council being the main agency establishing leadership, overall policy guidance, and exercising a wide, . array of powers to ensure that the plans are implemented. The environmental agency of each state is the lead coordinator of , JjO.", continued 33 ------- ~m~~~[~ ,- the non-point source management system within that state, although the Council also coordinates non-point with point source management through planning, land use review and permit and grant certification power. Strengths and Weaknesses This governmental structure can integrate well the water quality system internally and with objectives of other environmental programs -- air quality, water use and solid waste management. The functional as well as geographical perspective of the Council is sufficiently broad to equitably distribute the cost of pollution control. The Council can also assess the trade-offs among several environmental, social and economic objectives in the preparation of the development guide and land use planning and review. However, these larger trade-offs are assessed largely in the planning context, with operational as~ects, apart from waste manage- ment and water supply, being decentralized to local governments. In this sense, because the regional Council is not a general purpose government, it lacks total interfunctional flexibility. The two-tiered structure is able to take advantage of the benefits of regional approaches -- economies of scale and equitable distribution of costs and benefits among service areas and individuals -- while main- taining local governmental functions and agencies to a great extent for strictly local matters, such as water delivery, and sewage and trash collection. Local agencies are easily available to citizens for review and control. The upper tier incorporates pOlitical accountability, since key decision-makers must stand for election within districts, and do not receive their jObs by appointment. The Council has substantial powers to plan and see that their plans are carried out, without actually performing operational tasks. However, implementation of 208 and other plans that depend on state and federal actions must be achieved by persuasion only. The Council can limit state and federal funding and permit issuance powers to some extent, by re- quiring the Council's certification prior to state and federal approval. Perhaps the main drawback of this institutional structure is that it is difficult to create. Many existing agencies, procedures and relation- ships must be changed and creation of an interstate compact is time- consuming. Many special interest groups and governmental officials will undoubtedly oppose such major changes in the status quo, feeling that the established ways of doing business are preferable. Fears of regional government beyond the control of the average person will be aroused. /Such a major rearrangement will create administrative confusion within new agencies and loss of morale among some affected government employees, may occur, at least in the short run. Environmental programs may suffer delays because of the confusion. It can also be said that the Metro Environmental Council adds another, new layer of government, making government overall less responsive and less accessible to the citizenry. However, the new layer does not duplicate local functions, but divides them along subfunctional lines. Citizen participation is also formally structured and encouraged. 34 continued ------- ~~~I~[~ Two-Tiered .Examp1e Four ~lu1ti-Purpose Structure for an Urban Interstat:.~_~ SCOPE All point and point sources the region non- in WATER POLLUTION SOURCE Point Sources . Se'~ered Nunic. industrial wastes . Direct Indus- trial Dis- charges . storm Water in Sewers I. SOURCE OF FINANCING Specified perc:('.ntl!ge of user charges of Environmental Service II. TECh.NICAL SOLUTION IN 208 PLAN Collect wastes Treat, dispose, reuse wastes; sludge disposal and use Adequate private treatment; Reduced waste generation Construct catch basins; separate some cOIT~ined sewers; Regulate flows thru treatment plants Design requirements for ne\~ system emphas- izing on-site de- tention 208 PLANNING PYLA'rE;D PT J\NNING FUNCTIONS PLAlmING AGENCY Metropolitan Environ- mental Cow-lci1* Comprehensive land use planning; reg- ional development guide; transpor- tation planning; all solid ~laste, water supply, air poll. control plan- ning. . 208 MANAGEHENT MANAGEY.ENT ACTION IN .IN 208 PLAN MANAGEMENT AGENCY Plan, Finance, con------- Local govts., struct, O&M sanitary districts Regulate -- Two State Dept. of Environmental Quality, Environ!':\cnt.a1 Service** Plan, O&M,. construct - Environmental Finance (revenue & - Council *** g.o. Bonds) Regulate s:l.te locations _Local govts., Service Council Regulate wastes; Certify for permit Issue pennit Council State DEP's Regulate thru fiscal, - Council Eets rate pricing policy for ~ervice Regulate thru site - Local govts., Council location Plan, Construct, O&M ---- Environmental Service Finance Council Regulate construction - LOcal govts. of new system continued. 3S ------- ~m~I~[~ Example Four (Contjnued) WATER POLLUTION SOURCE TECHNICAL SOLUTION IN 208 PLAN Nonpoirit 'Soutces . Construction Site Runoff Erosion control "Clean City" cam- " paigns, more frequent street t:leaning pesticides used less Proper use of chemi- cals on high\'l,ays COMPlffiHENSIVE FUNCTIONS o Land use decisions . Monitor water quality discharges to ~ater; biological systern~; (also air quality, solid waste effects) . Monitor compliance with 200 plan; Evaluate management agencies per- formance . o Maintain information system MANAGEMENT ACTION IN 208'PLAN MANAGEMENT AGENCY ~;'eiop model land .~ Council' . management: practices' . . Require local govts.--- toadop.t & enf01::c.e . . erosion. control ordinances State DEP's .Adopt, enforce ordinances Local govt's. . Plan, develop Council strategies. . Operate, maintain - Local Public Works Regulate State Dept. 'of Ag. Education programs----- State Dept. of Ag. Operate, maintain - State Highway Depts. Plan comprehensive - Local govts., .land use Council Zoning, issue de- - Local velopment permits over purely local development;s govts. Issue permits over - 7.ocal govts., developments of area- Cow1cil wide impact on en- vironmental quality Council Council Council continued 36 ------- Example Four (Cont:i.nu"u) . ' . COMPREHENSIVE FUNCTIONS . Develop policies, strategies agencies with'water quality, water supply impact. . for ,all local & regional air quality, solid wastes, o Stop any regionalagencjes action that will prevent impl€m~ntation'of 208, regional air quality, solid' waste or water supply plans & policies. o Postpone any local govt. decision for 60 days that will prevent plan accomplishment. . A-95 review, certify all applications for federal grants, NPDES permits. . Metropolitan Environrnen~a1 Council is overall program coordinator. **Environmental Service is primary management agency '... Metropolitan Environmental Council ~ mrol~[~ DESIGNATED ~1MJ;\GE- HENT AGENCY Cound 1 Coullci1 Counci,l C.ouncil o '" U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975- 210-810:58 37 ------- |