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

-------