LAND USE
Report of the Region II Youth Advisory Board
io the Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Office II
'
!,"-*- •»'• *T 7
I!
-------
LAND USE
Report of the Region II Youth Advisory Board to
the Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Office II
November 20, 1972
Prepared by
Paul Chakroff
Steve Melman
Marilyn Spigel
Edited by
Marilyn Spigel
This document has not been formally released by EPA and should
not at this stage be construed to represent Agency policy. It
is being circulated for comment on its technical accuracy and
policy implications.
Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Office II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
-------
Acknowledgements
The authors of the report wish to thank Vivian Li, Richard Willinger,
Miguel Antonetti-Alvarez, and Nancy Carter for their contributions to
and extensive comments on the Report. We would also like to thank
Robert Jacobson and Herman Phillips for their assistance and patience.
Our thanks too to the Region II Public Affairs secretarial staff for
their help on everything from travel vouchers to the myriad typographical
corrections made in the draft report.
-------
Youth Advisory Board
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II Office
Federal Building
26 Federal Plaaa
Nr-w YniU, N*?w York HUM)/
Letter of Transmittal:
Region II Administrator:
Mr. Hansler: The Region II Youth Advisory Board herewith submits its
Land Use Study, November 1972, in accordance with the resolution of
the National Youth Advisory Board, Environmental Protection Agency,
February 1972, that a National Study of EPA's Effects on Land Use
should be conducted. The document represents the work of the Region
II Youth Advisory Board and its Intern Staff. The members of the
Board generally agree with the contents and recommendations of the
Report, however, their agreement on specific items is by no means
unanimous. The Board feels that the most important suggestions of
the report are that one, the EPA weigh environmental problems and
their solutions in a holistic arena, which intrinsically includes
land parameters, and two, the EPA strengthen its anticipatory role
in environmental protection.
A^JTT,,^ UV_y sU&c*^~^i_j-^
•d Willinger
YAB Region II Chairman
Richard Willinger
Paul Chakroff s /
Land Use Coordinator
Miguel Antonetti Alvarez
Roger Davis
Vi
-------
-TABLE OF CONTENTS-
PREFACE
Section I URBANIZATION AND FRINGE DEVELOPMENT
1. The Urbanization Process: Obstacles to Rational
Land Use 1
2. Land Use Control Mechanisms 15
3. Case Study: Readington Township, Hunterdon County,
New Jersey 22
4. Case Study: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 40
Section II TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
1. The Urban Transportation Crisis 51
2. Transportation Systems and Air Pollution 59
3. Transportation Systems and Noise Pollution 69
4. Transportation and Federal Fiscal Policy 77
5. Case Study: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
- Transit Versus the World Trade Center 85
6. Case Study: The Richmond Parkway $ The Staten Island
Greenbelt 92
Section III OPEN LAND AND WATER AREAS, DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1. Open Space and Environmental Quality 119
2. Open Space for Urban Areas: Federal and State Policy 127
3. Case Study: Gateway National Recreation Area 136
4. Case Study: New York City Water Pollution and
Waste Water Treatment Plant Funding 142
-------
5. Impacts of Land Use on the New Jersey Wetland Eco-System 147
6. Case Study: Hackensack Meadowlands 149
7. Water Pollution From Rural and Urbanizing Land 165
8. Floodplains and Development Policy 173
9. Agricultural Lands and Development Pressures 180
10. Solid Waste Disposal and Land Use 188
Section IV EPA AND LAND USE: FUTURE GOALS 197
RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
Preface
This report is an attempt to trace the interrelationships between land
use and environmental quality, especially as they relate to the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency. Many of these relationships are subtle and
their significance is often neglected. However, the Land Use Task Force
believes that unless increasing attention is paid to land use, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency will progressively decrease in its effectiveness.
The report also studies the extent to which Federal policy and other
Federal agencies work counter to EPA's mandate to preserve and protect the
environment.
This report attempts to deal more completely with the functional
relationships between land use and environmental quality by discussing
EPA programs within the context of major users of the land. Thus, the
report is divided into categories which reflect the urbanization process,
the transportation network, and the open land and water areas of the
region. As befitting a region that contains many of the major urban areas
of the United States, the report devotes considerable attention to these
categories within an urban or suburban context. The final section of the
report recommends immediate, specific changes that EPA could make to more
actively engage the problem of land use.
EPA is still a young agency searching for its most effective role.
As changes and reorganization take place, it is hoped that increasing
attention will be paid to the ways in which land is used. A tendency
currently exists to regard the question of land use as somewhat frivolous
in light of the many other serious problems that confront this region.
-------
The authors understand that program divisions are overworked and under-
staffed even without taking on new responsibilities. However, without
a new orientation for EPA, one that considers land use as an integral
part of environmental quality control, the situation can only grow worse.
Without this orientation, EPA will constantly find itself in a position of
cleaning one environmental scourge and as a result injuring another
important environmental system the land.
-------
SECTION I
URBANIZATION AND FRINGE DEVELOPMENT
1. The Urbanization Process: Obstacles to Rational Land Use
For myriad reasons, much current development in the United States
takes the form of loosely strung together suburbs in ever expanding
radii from our major urban centers. The evidence of this continuing
development on the urban fringes is all around us: some hypothesize
the existence of one huge metropolis in not too many years from now,
consisting of the continuous suburbs from Boston to Washington, D.C.
In few parts of the country is this urban fringe development more
widespread than around New York City. The Regional Plan Association
(RPA), a New York City-based citizens organization dedicated to the
development of an efficient, attractive and varied tri-state metropolitan
region surrounding the Port of New York, has projected the New York
City Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area to grow by six million
people in the next ten years. Half of this growth is to occur in
northern New Jersey. The currently existing farmlands will house a
major proportion of our urban uses--residential, industrial, and recrea-
tional- -by the 1980's.
An indication of this fringe growth is that of housing starts.
While only 25,500 new dwelling units were authorized for construction
in Newark between 1960 and 1965, some 211,400 new units were authorized
in the nine northern New Jersey counties which comprise the western portioi
of the New York City Metropolitan Area.
-------
- 2 -
The successive fringe developments since WW II now total more people
than the original inner city. And the growth has not been entirely
residential. In 1970 more workers commuted into suburban Westchester
o
County, N.Y., in the morning than commuted out. Industrial relocation
from outmoded plants in the city to new modern facilities in developing
areas is bringing the new jobs to these areas. Decentralization from
Manhattan is a very real phenomenon as corporate headquarters such as
IBM sprout among the rural settings of the region.
Unfortunately, this development all around the large cities has
proceeded in a manner that can best be described as haphazard and
capricious, with consequent profound impacts for environmental quality,
some of which have not yet been felt. The reasons for the squandering
and misuse of the land are many. An attempt will be made to explain
several.
*r
In the United States land is not thought of as a resource but
rather as a kind of blue chip stock known as real estate. "Buy land
as a hedge against inflation" people are toId--and buy land they do,
for which they ultimately expect a handsome return on their investment.
Thus, land goes to the highest bidder more often than it goes to the
use which would be best environmentally, socially, economically (in
the sense of long range cost to the community, etc.J
Not only is this one predominant value that must be countered to
foster sensible use of the land, there are numerous other facets of the
tradition of the United States that lead to poor development practices.
One is the "Go West Young Man" ethic--the big push for clean, fresh
land out on the frontier where life can begin anew. It should have
-------
YORK
lized Areas
>K $i£vi$&£6
/ \ KS XV" i /.
' I _>; >' -^ •-- 5
New J«nay porlion of thf Kew Yoik—NortheMrern New J*n«y Urb»ni»d Ar«» «p^*»j» on lh» followinj pa(n
-------
- 3 -
been obvious to the public for many years that we have just about run out
of frontiers. However, not an issue of the New York Times goes to print
without an ad for land in Arizona or New Mexico for sale (in quarter-acre
plots) and for those who can't bear to be too far from Saks and Blooming-
dales department stores, there are always Westchester County or Northern
New Jersey plots.
Another common attitude makes regulation of land development an
uphill task: There is an ancient legal and historic tradition that we
have inherited from England that "a man's home is his castle." It is
true that numerous modern court decisions have upheld the right of
municipalities to zone, condemn land, perform eminent domain, etc.
However, the effectiveness of these types of tools is often a function
of the degree of public cooperation. It is entirely possible that this
cooperation would be forthcoming in instances where the planning agency's
decision was well justified and where care was taken to explain how the
action would benefit the public as a whole. However, the planner is
first faced with the problem of explaining to the public many of the
factors governing land use that are never discussed in school and rarely
discussed afterwards. It would be difficult to find a profession that
is more obscured from public understanding. Land development and planning
are virtually never part of a general education process. Thus, when
suddenly faced with an unknown planner who wants to stop a nice old Mrs.
Miller from selling her farm to a factory complex that would mean more
jobs and tax revenues for the town at large, public reaction is predictable
and understandable.
-------
- 4 -
There are a number of more tangible governmental obstacles to
rational land use, not the least of which is the present reliance
upon property tax for the finance of local public services.
The bulk of municipal revenue collection comes from the property
tax. The property tax, or real estate tax, is a tax on property owners.
Each parcel of property is assessed a monetary taxable valuation.
Usually this assessment is a fraction of the actual market price of the
parcel. The assessment is then taxed at a rate which is usually ex-
pressed as so many dollars per $100 of assessed valuation. Suburban
municipalities developed after World War II spend a major percentage
of their budget on schools, and therefore most of the property taxes
go towards school expenditures. Older municipalities (which exhibit
characteristics of socio-economic problems generally categorized as
"inner city") spend proportionately less of their budget on schools.
These older cities usually have larger service expenditures such as
welfare and fire protection.
In the older cities the property is not valued as highly as
property in the newer suburbs, especially residential property. In
fact, with the increased incidence of deterioration, abandonment, and
demolition, the total dollar value of assessed real property becomes
less and less capable of meeting the costs of the municipality. Old streets
in the municipality need more repairs than the new ones in the suburbs.
And older, younger, and poorer people generally require more expensive
services than the people found in newer suburbs.
Thus, although the older cities need far more money to meet their
fiscal requirements, they have increasingly less valuable property to tax
-------
- 5 -
for the necessary revenues. The inevitable outcome is that they must
keep raising their property taxes until the rates are higher than those
in the surrounding suburbs. This reinforces the undesirability of the
older locations and sends many home owners and much industry out to
the urban fringes that might not have otherwise relocated.
The property tax has hurt the communities on the urban
fringe and altered development patterns there, as well. The plan for
Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York termed the reliance on the property
tax (particularly for support of local school systems) "the most
formidable obstacle to successful implementation of a rational land use
plan." Due to the high costs of running education facilities and
providing basic capital improvements such as sewers and streets, only
a few of the things that the property tax finances, municipalities be-
come more concerned with attracting high-tax uses of the land than with
developing a well-planned attractive environment. "Clean" industry
such as the computer industry or executive offices of large corporations
became in terrific demand and land that was formerly set aside for open
space was sold so it could provide tax value.
Although much industry moved out to the urban fringes,
many blue collar and middle income workers could not. Just as industry
means a high tax base, low price homes mean low taxes to town authorities.
Many towns protected their all-sacred tax base by passing zoning
ordinances that required not only large minimum lot acreage before a
home could be constructed but also minimum home sizes far above any
standards that bear a relationship to health and safety. A frequent
rationale local governments used for these actions was the absence of
-------
- 6 -
adequate sewers, water, etc., to accommodate a large influx of population.
Sometimes, the courts accepted these arguments, increasingly they will
not. It has been well documented (as will be discussed later) that
there are methods of preserving land, natural resources and environmental
amenities without requiring the purchase of $75,000 worth of land by each
family moving into a community as had occurred in a number of town with
five acre lot minimums and land that sold for $15,000 dollars an acre.
Ironically, the municipalities seeking to limit their costs by
imposing high lot requirements and thus allegedly diminishing demands
upon schools, utilities, and other public facilities, may incur far more
hidden costs than they realize. These communities with large acreage
zoning often are victims of a sprawled land use pattern with its
concomitant high social and capital costs. More streets and longer
sewer connection lines are required. Their children may have to travel
much further to school than if the community were better planned, en-
tailing high social costs and expensive school busing. These types
of communities may end up paying more taxes than even they can
tolerate in their quest for exclusiveness.
Quite justifiably, the property tax is now under attack by a
wide cross-section of communities in both New York and New Jersey,
however, challenges to the tax in both states have failed thus far.
In New York, the Fleishman Commission Report of January, 1972 recommend-
ed that the state take over the full financing of public education during
the course of the next five years. The recommended method would be a
uniform, statewide property tax for education at a rate of $2.04 per $100
of true value. Local rates would eventually be stabilized at this figure.
-------
- 7 -
This would be in line with recent court decisions made in California,
Texas and Minnesota holding that the use of local property tax to support
education discriminates against children who live in communities with
low property values. However, a challenge to the constitutionality of
New York's school financing system was dismissed in the New York State
Supreme Court of January of this year.
Similarly, setbacks were faced in New Jersey on this same issue.
Governor Cahill's tax reform bill which sought to remove the regressive
property tax burden from municipalities and replace it with a broad
based income tax met with defeat by the New Jersey State Legislature
in July of this year.
The whole concept of land taxation is very much related to another
enemy of rational development patterns--that of governmental fragmenta-
tion in the face of problems that demand a regional approach. New York
and New Jersey are both strong home-rule states, which means that con-
siderable planning responsibility is delegated by the state to local
municipalities. These municipalities are continually competing with
each other for tax base, for industry, for government grants, etc.
Few cooperate with each other to any significant extent.
Yet, they are all faced with problems far beyond the scope that
they can control as individual towns or villages. These small com-
munities are collectively creating such massive problems as the New
York City regional conglomeration of natural, economic, and social
forces, yet the regional agencies currently existing have far less
political and legislative authority than even a small village.
-------
- 8 -
Regional problems demand a regional problem solving approach, most
obvious in terms of resources such as air and water, but in addition,
in relation to such pressing difficulties as solid waste disposal,
allocation of land, attraction of tax revenues, watershed protection,
flood plain zoning, etc. Unfortunately, regional planning and co-
ordination will be slow in coming as local political leaders loosen
their grip on local pursestrings and patronage sources with only the
greatest reluctance. The courts are just beginning to rule against
localities that have deprived whole regions of what was rightfully
theirs. For example, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that
beaches and ocean waters are a public trust. It was decided that
municipalities with such natural resources cannot charge higher fees
to non-residents for use of these resources. Now suits are underway
against several of the communities on Long Island that shut the doors
to their beaches to New York City residents. Hopefully, the number of
rulings in other areas related to regional sharing and coordination
will lead to the reform which is unlikely to come from the legislatures
of the two states at present.
One of the major forces likely to spur legislation giving broad
ranging authority to regional planning agencies is the pollutant level
spilling from the older central cities that lack the tax base to curb
the pollutants. The suburbs are just beginning to realize that while
they have, for example, attracted significant amounts of New York City's
tax base, they are also inheriting its pollution as it spreads down
through the Long Island Sound. New York City claims that it simply
doesn't have the funds to construct the necessary water treatment plants
-------
- 9 -
as rapidly as they are needed. Consequently, with each heavy rainfall,
the Long Island Sound receives a fresh influx of New York City's pollutants.
Interestingly enough, Puerto Rico (which will be discussed later
in the report) has a fairly centralized governmental system, and yet
it still must struggle with a difficulty that is plaguing all urban
and fringe areas most severely and causing blatant misuse of the land.
That, of course, is the extensive Federal and State highway building
programs that has such marked impact upon urban fringe development.
There is incredibly little interface between State Highway Departments
(which do most of the planning for federally aided highways) and land
planning agencies. Even if there were, it has been pointed out that the
power of regional agencies is exceedingly limited in most cases and
local agencies are often totally incapable of dealing with and channel-
ing the massive push for land that follows even rumors of highway con-
struction.
Despite the fact that New Jersey presently contains highways
that have been described as "the country's biggest free parking lots,"
pressures are mounting on what undeveloped land remains to construct
still more of the sprawling residential and commercial developments
that demand automobile use. In fact, the people who make their living
by dealing with the land as a speculative entity rather than a resource
prefer to see the highway built in advance of development (the antith-
esis of rational planning) so that they can see their land increase in
value. This type of approach practically insures that the highway will
be obsolete before it is formally opened. It also leads to a development
pattern in which it is very difficult to efficiently operate any kind of
-------
- 10 -
transit facility on anything but an inconvenient and money-losing basis.
These considerations do not deter people like realtor Joseph Dobbs
however, whose Dobbs Associates, Inc., earned $16.5 million last year
by selling residential property in Morris, Somerset, and Hunterdon
Counties, much of it along the interstate routes. "We still face a
housing shortage in New Jersey and more highway miles that are opened,
the greater the land availability for our basic working force. The
limits of a 45 minute travel time for the wage earner can be extended
as much as 10 or 12 miles by the simple addition of an express route,"
Dobbs has said. Only at the beginning. And only if he/she is one of
the first to move in. After several years it may take as long as 45 minutes
just to cover those extra 10 or 12 miles on the "expressway" at rush
hours. "The basic working force," as Mr. Dobbs likes to call them will
also, no doubt, have to suffer the brunt of the increased carbon
monoxide and nitrous oxide levels. For if typical trends continue,
industry will also move out along the new interstate routes, drawing
its labor from widening circles.
While the air pollution levels in suburbia grow higher, they grow
unbearable in the inner cities, particularly for the urban poor. For
the urban poor there are no expensive trips out of town in the summer,
even few daily escapes. Often, their housing lies close to both heavy
street traffic and inefficient industry living out its last, polluting
days. This leads to serious health hazards, such as the high blood
lead levels that 400,000 inner city children are believed to suffer with.
-------
- n -
Highway money is not the only major federal spur to development
that can then precede far ahead of resource planning. Federal sewer
grants in some communities have stimulated growth levels that communities
never expected and had no capability to handle. In general,
communities have not tended to worry about their resource problems
until severe shortages or pollution levels appeared on the horizon.
With not many exceptions, it was only then that air or water or land
quality became more important than tax base or some other more "practical"
goal.
Thus, critical elements of our environmental system such as flood-
plains, wetlands, open space, drainage patterns, and soil content have
been sacrificed to tax base, land speculation and political expediency.
The resulting environmental problems are expected and numerous. Many
communities that developed too rapidly, with insufficient thought to
the future, have created extreme water shortages for themselves.
Wetlands that should have been protected were used for sanitary landfill
as communities turned to what seemed the easiest and cheapest way to
dispose of solid wastes. Septic tank subdivisions provided more profit
for the developer than his/her bearing part of the cost of sewering.
Some communities lacked both the foresight and the nerve to forbid
such practices. Air quality diminished as automobiles became necessary
for every trip from home in the sprawled fringe environment.
If just two of these environmental difficulties are examined more
carefully at this time, it becomes clear what a great stake EPA has in
rational land development. Other cases will be examined throughout
this report. At this point a brief look at drainage patterns,
-------
- 12 -
subdivision planning and solid waste disposal practices will help emphasize
what has been discussed.
Nature performs a number of valuable functions for man free of
charge. One such service is the vast underground water network that
underlies most communities, and is continually replenished if man does
not interfere. However, as much of the surface of the land is paved
over, the cycle is disturbed, a major source of pure water curtailed.
According to one authority, "...the introduction of hard surfaces such
as buildings and streets increases the amount and velocity of surface
runoff. The coefficient of runoff c, the fraction of total rainfall
which runs off on the surface may vary from almost 1 on waterproof
surfaces or even over 1 when warm rain falls on ice or snow to as low
as .01 in dense old woods with spongy soil."
Unfortunately, however, the predominant development approach that
has been taken to deal with this problem is not the best solution. The
State of New Jersey (among others) recommends certain minimum lot sizes
based on the drainage and water recharge capabilities of the soil.
Hunterdon County, New Jersey, which shall be examined later, follows
these state recommendations religiously. However, the evils of large
lot zoning have already been examined, and countless experts feel that
clustered development--an environmentally sound approach--actually
improves drainage much more.
As usual though, good ideas don't always work when set into the
arena of uninformed public opinion. In Suffolk County on Long Island,
two builders attempted to combine a 230 acre tract Planned Unit Development
with wetland preservation. They would have built clusters of two story
-------
rce of
grams:
Last
idscape
liam H.
fte
A not un-typical development plan in which little attention
is paid to protecting open space or the natural features of
the landscape.
LET I LU ILL IJ_L IJJ LL
A cluster development plan allows land to be protected with-
out additional cost to the developer.
There is considerable leeway and opportunity for variety
in the design of the individual clusters that make up a
cluster development. Here is how a cluster could look.
-------
- 13 -
garden apartments on 119 acres, and deeded the other 112 acres of open
space to a land trust. However, there was great public opposition to
the Town of Islip having to change its zoning ordinance in order for this
to be accomplished. Long Island residents, as do residents of many
other suburbs across the United States, view apartment construction as
encroachment by the city they moved to the suburbs to escape.
Similarly, solid waste disposal practices that result from ex-
pediency, too rapid development, shortage of funds, and lack of knowledge
of the long range environmental results of these actions are foolhardy.
As long as sanitary landfill continues to be the cheapest means of
disposing of solid waste, many communities will continue to use this
method, even though they may be radically misusing the land in the
process.
One such site is the Hackensack Meadowlands of New Jersey, parts
of which may still be described as a fragile and valuable environmental
system. Despite this, 118 communities dispose of their waste in the
Meadowlands, accounting for 27% of the solid waste generated in the
State of New Jersey. New York City looks longingly towards the
Meadowlands as relief for its own waste problems, even though at this
time it is clear that New York City will never use the Meadowlands for
waste disposal.
It is conceivable that if EPA provided markedly increased as-
sistance in such areas as resource recovery programs, it could alle-
viate the strains on other EPA programs involving water resources.
This could happen if water recharge areas such as wetlands were not
used for dumping but rather, were allowed to do what nature intended
them to do--store water.
-------
- 14 -
Numerous good arguments can be made for a land development system
based on the "physiographic determinism" put forth by Ian McHarg, Chairman
of the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at
the University of Pennsylvania. Instead of laying down an arbitrary
design for a region, the plan that nature has already laid out would be
found and adhered to. Development would precede only where it would
not markedly disturb the complete environmental cycle that could
function in an alonost self-regulating way. Presently, according to McHarg,
"...Marshes seem made to be filled, streams to be culverted, rivers to
be dammed, farms subdivided, forest felled, flood plains occupied, and
wildlife eradicated." It would be most beneficial for EPA to com-
pletely explore the implications that this type of planning could have
for its programs. At this point a general discussion of the existing
legal devices and tools available to planners would help to clarify
what mechanisms for the control and regulation of development are
currently available.
-------
- 15 -
2. Land Use Control Mechanisms
One authority describes three land use control systems. The
first is the official system. It consists of the legal tools of zoning,
subdivision, and official map control. Zoning regulates the use of
land and structures within given zones, i.e., residential, industrial,
etc. Subdivision regulates the dividing of the land for more intensive
use and allocates the costs for certain incidental facilities such as
sewers and other utilities. When a developer blocks off his/her land
into several lots on each of which a house will be built, subdivision
has taken place. Finally, the official map designates future open space
in undeveloped areas. This open space is primarily in the form of parks
and stream beds. Environmental criteria are allegedly used with each
tool. In providing municipal services the functional interrelationship
of uses is analyzed so that compatibility of use can occur.
The second system of land use control is the tax system, that is,
the regressive property tax system previously discussed. Many believe
that once the tax system topples, other systems will be ripe for a merging
of inner city and suburban interests.
The third system of land use control is the planning of public works.
In the case of Readington Township in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, the
completion of two Interstate highways suddenly made the town easily ac-
cessible from all directions. The impact of these highways on land values
and development, in any area, is massive. Hi-rise office structures
frequently are built at the intersection of two highways, one example
being the Hess Office Tower at the intersection of the New Jersey Turnpike
-------
- 16 -
and the Garden State Parkway. The degree to which public facility
planners have neglected the economic, social and environmental impact
of their projects is clearly demonstrated by the 20-year master plan
recently unveiled by the New Jersey Department of Transportation. The
plan sheds no light on how New Jersey is to develop its system. DOT
Commissioner John C. Kohl comments, "What we have here is a broad frame-
work for development, and we will show how various programs fit into the
12
framework as we go along." As usual, the highway planners will look
at the havoc they create after the damage has been done.
Norman Williams Jr., suggests a creative method for
avoiding the ugly strip-commercial development so common along highways.
He combines official map techniques with public facility planning to sub'
divide a layout so that the next residential street parallel to the
highway is only a half block back. "With such a system, the principal
problems are thus resolved automatically (ribbon development). Here
again it is the physical layout of the public facilities specifically,
the distance between two public streets, and the provisions for access
from adjacent lots to the highway--which is likely to determine the
future land use." With a landscape buffer between the highway and
the backyards of the adjacent residences, the commercial development
with its unsightly appearance and dangerous traffic generating parking
lots would be impossible. Through such logical, legal means, land use
can be positively affected.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has
recognized the vital role land use controls play in determining environ-
mental quality. Thus, Commissioner Richard J. Sullivan testified as
-------
- 17 -
amicus curiae (friend of the court) in a recent zoning case in the
14
Somerset County division of the New Jersey Superior Court.
The action involved the Allan-Deane Corporation's attempt to upset
a five acre minimum lot size ordinance in Bedminster Township. Allan-
Deane wanted to build a conference center, dwelling area, and stores
in a planned unit type of development near the recently completed
intersection of two major transportation corridors, Interstates 78 and
287. On June 13, 1972, Commissioner Sullivan stated that the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) took no sides in the
action. Rather, he wanted to initiate a general discussion of the need
to consider environmental factors in land use decisions and the legal
justification thereof.
Sullivan pointed out that land use "...is clearly the single most
important determinant of the quality of air and water, and it is probably
the single most important factor in determining the quality of life
generally." At the same time, land use commitments are generally
more or less permanent, changes cannot be made without great effort.
Poor land use inevitably leads to environmental problems, some of which
may be remedied by technology. However, Sullivan emphasized that
technology is only a short-term expedient. As he stated in his brief:
It is possible to build sewage treatment plants, at great
expense, to cleanse the effluents of any town or city;
but if the number of connections to a sewer treatment
plant increases beyond the capacity of that plant, water
quality will continue to deteriorate. It is possible to
require potential sources of air pollution to install
the most modern abatement equipment; but if the number of
chimneys and the number of automobiles grow rapidly the
air will remain unhealthful...It is unmistakably clear
that choices between competing demands upon this limited
resource /the land/ must be made with infinite care and wisdom.
-------
- 18 -
Although efforts by environmental protection agencies to
involve themselves in land use considerations are noteworthy, unfortunate-
ly, Sullivan's implied solution to the dilemma rests again with exclusionary
zoning. He concedes that if a zoning ordinance that is restrictive or
exclusionary "is found not to be fairly justified through competent proof
by environmental considerations, the appropriate remedy is to direct the
municipality to develop a new master plan and zoning ordinance in con-
17
formity with certain environmental guidelines." Implicit in
that statement is the notion that if the ordinance were well supported
by environmental considerations it should be allowed to stand in its
current form. That would be a grave mistake. As discussed previously,
large lot zoning not only discriminates against sizable segments of the
population, it leads to environmental problems not found in communities
that make intelligent use of such techniques as cluster zoning. While
it is important that land use regulatory tools become part of the everyday
language of environmental agencies, it is necessary that they be under-
stood thoroughly, and that planners be employed who can deal more success-
fully with local planning authorities in attempts to guide land development
along environmentally sound paths.
To illustrate in depth many of the points that have been brought up
so far, examples will be drawn from two case studies that exhibit both
striking similarities and differences. Readington Township in Hunterdon
County, New Jersey, is rather typical of an urban fringe area in Region
II faced with factors that suddenly make it ripe for rapid development.
It is failing to cope with the rapid development in an intelligent and
foresighted way, and environmental problems lie ahead for it.
-------
- 19 -
The island of Puerto Rico, also facing continued rapid growth, is
already encountering critical environmental difficulties due to the
limited land area it has to work with and land consumption patterns that
ignore this factor. It has established sensible governmental structures
which, due to its centralized nature, could handle problems. However,
extraordinary factors make proper land use extremely difficult to obtain
in Puerto Rico.
-------
- 20 -
FOOTNOTES
Section I - Urbanization and Fringe Development
1. The Urbanization Process: Obstacles to Rational Land Use
2. Land Use Control Mechanisms
1. Ernest Erber and William Andersen, Jr., "New Jersey: Issues and Actions
Regional Plan News. No. 83 (April, 1967), p. 12.
The nine northern New Jersey counties are Bergen, Essex (containing
Newark), Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and
Union.
2. Chris Kristensen, John Levy, and Tamar Savir, The Suburban Lock-Out
Effect, Research Report No. 1 (White Plains, N.Y: Suburban Action
Institute, March, 1971)
3. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive
Development Plan: Summary (Hauppauge, N.Y: Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board, 1970)
4. Borough of Neptune City v. Borough of Avon-by-the-Sea, Supreme Court
of New Jersey (September Term, 1971, A-71)
5. "Realtor Credits Highways in Opening Residential Area," Star-Ledger
(Newark), January 28, 1972.
6. Task Force on Environmental Problems of the Inner City, Report of the
Task Force to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Our Urban
Environment and Our Most Endangered People, September, 1971, p. 50.
7. William Howard Espey, Jr., C.W. Morgan and F. D. Masch, Some Effects
of Urbanization on Storm Runoff From a Small Watershed, Report 23,
Texas Water Development Board, 1966.
8. Just a few of the sources that indicate the superiority of clustering
to large lot zoning as a protection for the land and the environment
are:
R. W. Carter, Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Suburban Areas,
U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 424-B, 1961.
William H. Whyte, The Last Landscape (Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday
& Co., Inc., 1968)
William H. Whyte, Cluster Development (New York: American Conservation
Association, 1964)
-------
- 21 -
9. Charles E. Little and John G. Mitchell, Space For Survival: Blocking
the Bulldozer jn Urban America, A Sierra Club Handbook (New York:
Pocket Books, 1971), p. 14.
10. Whyte, The Last Landscape citing the works of Ian McHarg, pp. 182-83.
11. Norman Williams, Jr., "The Three Systems of Land Use Control," Rutgers
Law Review (Fall, 1970)
12. Star-Ledger (Newark), July 28, 1972.
13. Williams, "Land Use Control..."
14. See Brief of Richard J. Sullivan, Commissioner of Environmental Protecti
State of New Jersey, Amicus Curiae, Allan-Deane Corporation v. Township
of Bedminster, Superior Court of New Jersey Somerset County (Docket No.
L 36896-70 P.W.)
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
-------
- 22 -
3. Case Study: Readington Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey
Hunterdon County is a large county with a small population.
Recently beginning to feel the impact of urbanization, Hunterdon has a
1970 population of 69,718, a 28.85% increase from the 54,107 residents
of 1960. Readington Township is a municipality in the eastern part of
Hunterdon with a 1970 population of 7,688 which is a 25.06% increase from
the 6,147 population of 1960. To the west is the Easton, Pennsylvania
industrial area. To the south is Trenton and Philadelphia. And to the
east is New York City and environs. Clearly, with the completion of
Interstates 78 and 287, along with other good roads, Hunterdon County
is within an hour and a half of a market made up of the two largest
cities in the eastern megalopolis, New York and Philadelphia: a market
comprising over 25 million people. Industry realizes this potential
and so do developers. The big push, so typical in the slightly older
counties to the east, is on.
Hunterdon County is growing at a more rapid pace than the
state of New Jersey as a whole. A conservative estimate would be that
200,000 people will live in Hunterdon County by the year 1985. East-west
public transportation, especially bus service to New York City, is ex-
cellent and provides a further impetus for growth. North-south travel
will be over excellent highways, 1-287 and route 202. About one-fourth
of the land area is being used for residential purposes while half of
the land is in agricultural production. Only one-tenth of the municipality
7
is classified as vacant. An additional undocumented fact is that a
majority of the land held by so-called developers is really in the hands
-------
tt
^Y
jnties, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and Selected Places
T.
^RSEY C.TY
irr
? PATERSON-CLIFTON-PASSAIC
•v_.
ALLENTOWN-BETHLEHEM-EASTON />
LEGEND
® Places ol 100.000 or more mhibiUnts
• Pl»c«s ol 50.000 lo 100.000 inhabitants
O Central cities ol SMSA's with (ewer than 50.000 inhabitants
O Places ol 25.000 to 50,000 inhabitants outside SMSA's
*r" "-1 Standard Metropolitan
..-:-^,^ ^siffiJ Statistical Areas (SMSA's)
-------
- 23 -
of speculators, according to Mr. Sturmer, Readington's zoning officer.
The above synopsis indicates that the area, in particular Readington,
on its present path is doomed to oversaturated development. The neces-
sary transportation facilities are there, and so are the land speculators,
driving up the price of the remaining farm and vacant land. What if this
situation were allowed to proceed without any controls. What would be
the impact?
At a 6% growth rate, by 1985 Readington would need 45,000 new
dwelling units. If this residential impact seems staggering, consider
the impact of the facilities that are necessary to accommodate this
growth. With an uncontrolled growth rate of just 6%, by 1985 Readington
would need about 140 miles of new streets. The impact of these addi-
tions will be massive on drainage facilities and upon the landscape.
But equally significant will be the effect on the real estate taxes
which pay for the improvements. Each additional subdivision projected
allows an additional developer to drive up land prices and to treat
the land as a speculative commodity rather than as a resource.
The County Planning Board, in its Master Plan Report No. 18, has
set criteria for industrial growth. Based on a rating system of highway
access, existing sewers, existing water sources and proposed sewers,
the Board has allotted an additional 1,350 acres for industrial develop-
ments, creating a 1985 total of 1.5% of the county land area in industrial
use. The maximum employment growth from such a projection would be an
additional 2,150 workers. When this figure is compared to the 45,000
new dwelling units planned for Readington, alone, by 1985, it becomes
clear that those who live in Readington and Hunterdon County will have to
work elsewhere.
-------
- 24 -
Despite this planned housing construction, a severe housing shortage
exists in New Jersey. It has been estimated that when present demand,
replacement of substandard units and replacement of those units becoming
substandard are considered, 79,000 to 87,000 new dwelling units are
needed each year in the state. In 1969 less than 40,000 permits were
issued, meaning the housing shortage is increasing in severity, aggravated
by growth and migration coupled with spiralling costs. From 1960-69,
Hunterdon County's housing stock grew by 20% with 3772 permits being
issued. Of these, 88.5% were one-family structures, 1.7% two family
structures, and 9.2% three or more unit structures (no public housing
was built in the county during the 1960's).
Governor Cahill has expressed fears that while single family homes
pay their way in most states, it is not the case in New Jersey where real
estate taxes, are counted to pay for twice as much of the municipal budget
4
as elsewhere in the nation. Not only is the projected growth forcing
people to commute between homes and jobs, but also this growth will, if
left uncontrolled, be of such a nature as to bankrupt the municipalities
which are paying for facilities out of real estate taxes.
To bring the focus from the regional and county levels to the local
level, the Readington region of the county, being older, led all five
county regions in the total number of dwelling units, 5227, in 1960.
From 1960 to 1970 Readington led all Hunterdon towns in the increase
in new dwelling units, 1201. However, Readington was last in the per-
centage of new dwelling units built in multi-unit structures, only five
percent.5 The result is a continuing fiscal bind which will peak in
Readington before other parts of the county. The picture of the case
-------
o
o
c
CT
52
o
3
O
3
cn
O)
CL
TO
O>
O
(*
en
m
-------
- 25 -
study area so far is that of uncontrolled growth spelling disaster for
the future. The county has no authority in subdivision, zoning, building,
health, or nuisance codes. The municipality's ordinances are permitting
an amount of growth which cannot be handled environmentally or fiscally
without disaster.
What of the open space in the County which has yet to fall into the
hands of developers and speculators? The New Jersey Green Acres program
has already acquired 232 acres of a desired 453 acres in Hunterdon County
within the Delaware River Valley. These purchases will insure the
availability of boat launching, fishing, picnicking and other water-
related activities. Parks, playgrounds, and wilderness areas are also
being planned for the newly purchased Green Acres land. The federal
government covers half of the purchase price of $700,000 (about the same
federal share which is contributed for sewer construction). Of the 23%
of the County designated as open space, very little is used for active
Q
recreation. It appears that outright purchase of open space is not
providing much recreation for the County's residents.
As for landscape preservation, the purchase of less than fee rights
and interests is necessary. Visual paths from highways preserve magnifi-
cent views if billboards are controlled along with development. For
example, the State could purchase the right to restrict tree cutting on
a mountain which produces a beautiful view from a highway. A combination
of various legal techniques is necessary to preserve landscape without
huge expenditures.
The provision for sewers is a major shaping force in any developing
area. The New Jersey Department of Health must approve all new sewage
-------
- 26 -
plants in the State. As a result of 1966 legislation, New Jersey requires
sewage treatment facilities to be built on the basis of drainage basin
rather than municipal boundaries. The Department of Health makes grants
for feasibility studies for sewer systems, while the Hunterdon County
Planning Board is the area-wide planning agency for federally assisted
q
community improvement project review. Sewers are the one type of
facility which seems to be dealt with on a regional basis. The problem
to date is that the regional needs and criteria determining sewer place-
ment are usually soil conditions and existing development. These criteria
are insufficient in that they fail to consider social implications.
Development, whether it be residential, commercial, or industrial often
follows the corridors of municipal improvements such as sewers. The
regional planning of sewers must consider future land use as a primary
concern, in addition to the other criteria such as soil condition.
Readington will build, finance, and govern most of northern Hunterdon's
sewer system. Other municipal users of the system will pay rent for
their line tie-ins and treatment of effluent. Attorney William D'Annunzio,
representing Readington has said that approval by the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection would allow interest-free loans from the State
to pay for the preliminary engineering studies. Anticipating approval,
Readington already has applications for federal sewer construction funds
pending before the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The system will not be completed for at least two years because the
State may require tertiary or advance treatment. Such a requirement
would entail nitrate and phosphate removal from sewage and the establish-
ment of polishing ponds or lagoons to hold the effluent for two or three
-------
- 27 -
days while it aerates. Industries and restaurants might have to treat
effluents before sending them to Readington's treatement plant. This
process indicates many of the interrelationships among local, state and
federal governments in planning for sewers.
The present water supply in Hunterdon can support 200,000 people,
an increase of 8.8 million gallons per day must come from surface sources
to meet the demands of 1980. The expected cluster of industry and
the geologic formation of the area does not produce large yield wells.
The Hunterdon County Planning Board estimates that by 1985 some 128,412
people will be served by water companies. Using the figure for per
capita demand as one hundred gallons per day, a total residential demand
of 12.84 million gallons per day will occur by 1985. The residential
demand coupled with the industrial demand means that 8.8 plus 12.84 or
about 21 million gallons per day will be necessary. In 1966 only 2.1
million gallons per day were supplied by water companies. To meet
these immense future demands, proposals have been made to have the
North Branch and South Branch Raritan rivers flow into a confluence
reservoir. The Elizabethtown Water Company would draw 60 million gallons
per day while the North Jersey Districts Water Supply Commission would
request 70 million gallons per day with an additional 20 million gallons
per day in reserve. There are also plans to build a pipeline to the
Delaware River via Rockaway Creek, the confluence reservoir, and the
Round Valley Reservoir. The ecological impact of eastern New Jersey
drinking water pumped from western New Jersey is obviously massive.
The Master Plan Report for water put out by the Hunterdon County
Planning Board describes the proposal in detail. The County has asked
-------
- 28 -
the State Water Policy and Supply Council for 15 to 25 million gallons
per day to service the. communities of the South Branch watershed. The
County would treat and put back the water, although such a process is
less than 100% efficient because of septic tank usage. In summary,
land use planning is proceeding ahead of water resource planning and no
agency seems to be coining to grips with this crisis. The Round Valley
Reservoir, once opposed by conservationists, is now the object of
protective efforts by conservationists. The projected demand for water
is reversing priorities, even among the staunchest conservationists.
According to the Master Plan Report of the Hunterdon County Planning
Board, the County is responsible for all bridges, most large drainage
structures, and drainage into and out of the County road system. There-
fore, the County is looking at development in the area in terms of the
effect on drainage. The County has the power to adopt subdivisions and
site plan resolutions. However, such power is best described as suggestive
rather than jurisdictional. A county wide Drainage Plan is currently
being written which will aid developers and give municipalities a way
of assessing the costs of development.
The County Master Plan Report Solid Waste indicates that all but
four of the municipalities dispose of their solid wastes outside the
County boundaries. Readington, however, has its own sanitary landfill
site. The County feels that a carefully watched sanitary landfill is
the best way to dispose of solid wastes, but at a rate of 4.6 pounds
of solid waste per resident per day, the County is now dumping 37,000
tons of waste outside of its boundaries each year. If 6 to 12 acres of
sanitary landfill are necessary today, some 344 to 675 acres will be
-------
- 29 -
necessary by 1985. To minimize the i.mpact of solid waste on land use,
Hunterdon must begin to plan ahead for solid waste disposal.
One point must be emphasized. In addition to the federal and
state agencies, as well as the county and local planning boards, numerous
other agencies and organizations are involved in the development and
regulation process of a geographic and political entity such as Readington
Township. This fragmentation of different levels of official and un-
official authorities make even relatively simple procedures complex.
This can be observed by examining the land regulatory process in Read-
ington.
Land use decision-making at the local level is carried on by the
planning board. The planning board is a body of local residents which
decides whether or not certain proposed uses are compatible with the
Master Plan. The Master Plan or Comprehensive Plan is not a legal tool,
but rather a report which gives evidence of a well thought out rational
plan. If a developer is denied a building permit, he might look at the
master plan to see whether he was arbitrarily and therefore, unjustly
denied, or whether his proposed development was really an incompatible
use with future plans. The courts require the existence of the com-
prehensive plan to justify any action of the planning board. The zoning
map, another non-legal device often mentioned}is merely a pictoral
display of the zoning ordinance.
In Readington, another body other than the Planning Board, the
Board of Adjustment, handles cases requesting variances from the uses
thjg zoning ordinance allows. The stated purpose of the Readington
Zoning Ordinance adopted on November 1, 1961 and revised this year is,
-------
Existing Land Use 1n Readlngton Township
(In acres)
Total Residential 7,728
High Density Residential
Village Residential 492
Low Density Residential 1.362
Rural Residential 5,874
Commercial 242
Industry 33
Agriculture 16,830
Institutional
Public and Semi-Public 90
Recreation 6
Transportation and Communication 42
Vacant 5,812
Total 30,783
The various residential areas range from one to two acre zoning
for Individual lots.
Source: Hunterdon County Planning Board, Existing Land Use and Natural
Characteristics, 1969.
-------
- 31 -
insurance program requires detailed flood plain mapping to exist in
/
each applying municipality. There are three methods of determining
where the flood plain ends. The State uses the least cautious method
of noting the high water marks. Noting alluvial soil deposits defines
a wider area of flood plain. The safest method, with tropical storm
Agnes only a short time in the past, is to determine the 50 year flood
mark. One would feel relieved if the State had some control where
Readington was noticeably negligent. But the Bureau of Water Control
in the Department of Environmental Protection reviews only those sub-
division requests which are sent to it. The Bureau cannot require all
requests to be sent to its reviewers, so there is no back up control
on possible risky development.
The subdivision ordinance is the legal tool which most directly
controls problems such as drainage, sewers, and landscaping without
having additional hidden social effects. The Township of Readington
Subdivision Ordinance of 1963 and amended in 1971 is a potential land
use control of great power. For a developer to subdivide his parcel into
lots, he must first submit a sketch plat to the Planning Board. Such
a sketch is only approximate although the extent of detail required is
precisely stated in the Ordinance. The Planning Board is able to notice
any non-compliance or other problems from the sketch plat. When the
sketch plat is approved, the developer pays fees to have the Board examine
the preliminary plat. This second step is at a very precise, engineering
level, and usually one of the Planning Board members is, in fact, an
engineer. To show serious intent and to protect the community, the
developer must, at this second stage, post performance bonds to insure
-------
- 32 -
that the expensive municipal inspections will not be wasted on a false
project. Finally, a more detailed final plat is submitted at which
time additional performance bonds must be arranged by the developer to
assure the construction of facilities such as sewers even if he goes
bankrupt before the development is complete. This procedure is of
necessity very rigorous. An appeals procedure is also in effect for
dissatisfied developers. Variance procedures are established. And
detailed requirements for street, sidewalk, and utility construction
are listed.
This Subdivision Ordinance appears to be a good control, but it
could be much stronger. The County reviews all subdivision applications
within its boundaries, but it has only advisory "power."
It is easy to see how regional environmental, social and economic
problems occur when the agencies that were created to administer for
the regions are subordinate in land use control power to the small
municipalities. Readington Township's zoning ordinance is by no means
unique. In fact it is rather typical of the area. It satisfies the
citizens of the community as well. However, satisfying individual
communities rarely leads to a well planned region as an entire .unit
unless comprehensive measures are taken to assure this.
For example, the Hunterdon County Planning Board devised a
questionnaire and conducted a survey to help them determine goals with
the participation of the residents. The results of the survey showed
that^ere is a definite desire to maintain the rural atmosphere of
the County and to retain open space. Growth should be limited and the
County should "...encourage the provision of a variety of dwelling units
-------
- 33 -
in terms of environment and cost without encroaching on the open space
character or natural beauty of the County's landscape." Cluster de-
velopment was favored. The people desired an age diversification among
future residents but wanted no racial mix. A combination of small and
large lots was favored while the "new town" concept was disliked.
One of the problems with the Planning Board's analysis is that no-
where is the concept of "regional need" mentioned. The Governor of New
Jersey has appealed to the varied municipalities of the state urging
them to contribute their fair share of the solution to New Jersey's
housing shortage. To protect scarce natural resources, regional
planning must take place. Yet, many communities within Hunterdon
County actively attempt to avoid their share of the responsibility.
Industries are relocating from inner cities to suburban areas
because of high taxes, crime, and outmoded, crowded plants. People
work in these plants and when the plant relocates, the worker must
relocate or be able to commute long distances to keep his/her job.
Commuting generates traffic. Moving with one's job generates housing
demands. But Hunterdon County prefers no racial mix, so restrictions
are devised. Expensive housing is a barrier for low and moderate income
people, so if Hunterdon can require expensive housing to be constructed,
they have closed the door to all of the forces of change operating in
the region outside. In cyclic fashion a new wave of high taxes forces
relocation and more severe housing and job shortages result. The
present low income residents of Hunterdon are faced with severe problems.
The Directory of Manufacturing Industries published by the County Planning
Board shows only 100 factory jobs in the Readington area. How do un-
-------
- 34 -
skilled workers earn a decent living when the higher income residents
zone out industry for aesthetic reasons? With whom should the responsi-
17
bility rest? Can a municipality close its doors to regional problems?
A developer, the Mack Company, and a not-for-profit institute,
Suburban Action Institute, are jointly sponsoring a proposal to build
2000 units of town houses and garden apartments on 200 acres in Reading-
18
ton. The area is presently zoned for 1-3/4 acre lots and single family
detached dwellings. With federal and state subsidies, rents would
range from $30 a room for a family with an income up to $9,500, to $50
a room for those with incomes between $9,500 and $18,000. Depending
on income, a two-bedroom apartment could rent for between $135 and $225
a month. A full 51% of the development area is designated for open
space. Ecologically and socially, such a mixed development relieves
more regional needs and is less environmentally devastating than the
proposed 1-3/4 acre square lots, scalped to fit a street pattern. The
work schedule proposed would give priority to a sewer project before
the housing was constructed. Such a project would bring diversity of
people and would allow low and moderate income to relocate with their
jobs when industries move away from the cities. Under New Jersey not-
for-profit laws, any profits derived from this development would be
channelled back into the project. Final plans will be submitted to the
Readington Planning Board by the fall of 1972. Mr. Sturmer, Readington's
zoning officer, doubts whether the project will be approved, and at any
rate, hopes to delay matters until the State Supreme Court sets a precedent
for such development. The future of this project in Readington will in
-------
- 35 -
a large way be a harbinger of the type of urbanization one can expect
over the next decade in New Jersey. Ten years ago, the fringe of urban
development was much further to the east. In one decade, poor land
use planning has allowed huge areas to be paved over. Now a good
percentage of the population lives in these new developments. Regional
problems must not be hidden from through exclusionary systems.
There is a hopeful note in that goals change over time. Five years
ago the residents of Hunterdon County voted down the state's first
19
large scale funding of Green Acres projects. Since then open space
has been bought up by speculators and leased back to farmers until the
time came ripe to develop. State laws allowed low taxes to be applied
to farmland enhancing the developers interests in some cases. This
process, repeated many times, convinced County residents to favor the
Green Acres program which is preserving vast lands along the Delaware
and elsewhere.
The changing attitudes towards the Green Acres program emphasizes
the differing opinions concerning open space. Some people like huge
wilderness areas which can be driven to. Others like scattered public
open spaces which can be walked to in the neighborhood. The idea is
to permit options and personal choice, that do not lead to environmental
or social harm. Increasing the number of alternative options will in
the long run please more people than any solution forced upon them.
At the turn of the century, the Englishman Sir Ebenezer Howard proposed
a set of concentric circular greenbelt buffer areas to surround London.
Such a forced open space solution has advantages and disadvantages.
-------
- 36 -
The major disadvantage occurs when engineers draw their concentric
circles and leave as open space a choice development site while they
allow a perfectly beautiful natural resource area to be developed.
Flexibility is vital. People are happiest when they have viable
alternatives to choose from. No two people like the same things and
planning for recreation or different types of housing should recognize
this, where it is still possible.
However, in the past public choice and its fear of delegating
too much power to a central agency that could then assure that rational
land use occurred, has caused much of our sprawled suburban environment.
People wanted single family homes on quarter acre plots and they got
them, regardless of the environmental, economic or social consequences
for the public at large. Land was dealt ou,t via a consumer demand
system as are toasters or automobiles. >
Mr. Dumont Van Doren, the new Hunterdon County Planning Director,
has said that "In Hunterdon County, we are right in the middle of a
growth period and we have to plan now for future needs, which we've
20
done in the master plan." That is sheer nonsense. No master plan
handles growth and land development. It merely describes what should
be done. Then, only those agencies with the appropriate legal authority
to act may do so, and those agencies are mainly at a micro rather than a
macro level, where regional development and growth cannot be channeled
effectively.
Rational growth could be accommodated without crises if adequate
mechanisms existed to deal with this growth. Many of our other environ-
mental resources could be protected if land were so protected.
-------
- 37 -
An examination of the land development patterns and environmental
problems of Puerto Rico helps to emphasize some of the points that have
been made with reference to Hunterdon County, and also to show what
may happen to these suburban fringe areas, if they continue to develop
in the manner they have been following in the past.
-------
- 38 -
FOOTNOTES
Section I - Urbanization and Fringe Development
3. Case Study: Readington Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey
1. Hunterdon County Planning Board, 1970 Population Data (Flemington, N.J:
Hunterdon County Planning Board, 1971)
2. Hunterdon County Planning Board, Existing Land Use and Natural Characteristics
(Flemington, N.J: Hunterdon County Planning Board, 1969)
3. New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, The Housing Crisis in New
Jersey (Trenton,N.J: New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, 1970)
4. Ibid.
5. Hunterdon County Planning Board, An Anaylsis of Housing in Hunterdon
County (Flemington, N.J: Hunterdon County Planning Board, 1970)
6. Hunterdon County Planning Board, Delaware Valley Impact Study
(Flemirlgton, N.J: Hunterdon County Planning Board, 1970)
7. Hunterdon County Democrat. July 6, 1972.
8. Hunterdon County Planning Board, Open Space in Hunterdon County
(Flemington, N.J: Hunterdon County Planning Board, 1970)
9. Hunterdon County Planning Board, Sewers in Hunterdon County (Flemington,
N.J: Hunterdon County Planning Board, 1969)
10. Hunterdon County Democrat. June 29, 1972.
11. Grossman & Sherman-Consultants, Present and Prospective Use of Water by
the Manufacturing Industries of New Jersey, Report to the New Jersey
Division of Water Policy and Supply, June 14, 1963.
12. Township of Readington, Zoning Ordinance of 1961 (By Order of Readington
Township Committee)
13. Ibid.
14. Constance Gibson, Mobile Homes (New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University
Press, 1972)
\
15. See R.S. Tatton, The Need For; Flood Plain Zoning in Readington Township,
Hunterdon County, May, 1967.
-------
- 39 -
16. Hunterdon County Planning Board, Goals for Hunterdon County (Flemington, N.J
Hunterdon County Planning Board, T57IT)
17. The Courts are beginning to rule otherwise. See Oakwood at Madison, Inc.v.
Township of Madison in which Middlesex County Superior Court voided an
entire zoning ordinance because all of the remaining vacant land in the
Township was zoned for large acreage lots, and because multi-family dev-
elopment was virtually prohibited. In re Appeal of Kit-Mar Building, Inc.
439 Pa. 446, 268 A. 2d (1970) was also an important decision in this area.
18. Bergen County Record, April 28, 1972.
19. Editorial, Hunterdon County Democrat, July 6, 1972.
20. Hunterdon County Democrat. June 15, 1972.
-------
AREAS THAT SHOULD BE PRESERVED IN NATURAL CONDITIONS
Commonwealth of Puerto Ri'co
Natural Areas that should be preserved because erf:
(1 )Slope > 60 per cent, (2) slope > 40 per cent
and thin soils, (3) non productive lands, or (4) more than
TOO inches of annual rain fall.
Natural Areas of Extraordinary Value
Other greas that should be preserved
to protect scenic views, lakes and basins.
Existing Public Forest Areas.
Source: US Soil Conservation Services in cooperation with
The Bureau of Master Plans, P.R. Plannins Board.
-------
- 40 -
4. Case Study: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico is no longer a "quiet, little island" leading an
agricultural existence. Far from that, it is a vastly urban island
which suffers from many environmental problems. Perhaps the greatest
cause of these problems is the unplanned and haphazard growth of the
island's urban centers which are devouring one of the island's most
precious resources -- the land.
In order to appreciate why land is such a precious commodity in
Puerto Rico, it is important to be aware of the island's population
distribution and density. As of'the 1970 census, Puerto Rico, which
has a surface area of 3,339 square miles, had a total population of
2.7 million people, 55% of which lived in built-up areas. Vast areas
on the island are not utilizable for urban purposes because the land is
either too hilly or it lies on flood plains. For this reason it is not
possible to obtain any reliable information about population density
from the above figures.
A recent study has estimated that around 455 square miles of land
2
on the island are potentially utilizable for urban purposes, but the
islands urbanized areas as of 1970 occupied 137 square miles of level
area. The island's population density was over seven thousand
people per square mile in the urbanized sectors of the island in 1970,
the population density within the municipal boundaries of San Juan
being well over 9700 persons per square mile.
Although cities now occupy a very small fraction of the island's
level surface, the urban land area is expanding more rapidly than the
-------
- 41 -
population. The Puerto Rico Planning Board has predicted that by 1985
the urbanized portions of the island will occupy over 300 square miles
4
of level area. This increase is profoundly dramatic, since it will
represent more than a doubling of the urban land area in a little over
a decade. It is important to bear in mind that the 137 square miles
occupied by cities in 1970 represents urban growth since the island was
discovered in 1492. According to this projection, by 1985 almost 66%
of the total level area potentially available for urban development
would be used up. Thus if urban sprawl continues at today's rates, it
is reasonable to expect an urban land shortage in the near future.
There are many causes for this dramatic urban explosion. First
of all the urban population densities have been decreasing in recent
decades, while the rate of natural population increase has been relatively
stable at 1.95% per year. The 1950 census showed an average urban
population density of over 11,000 persons per square mile as opposed to
7000 in 1970. This decrease in density has been caused in part by
rising income levels which have brought about a reduction in overcrowding
within houses. Rising incomes have also enabled more people to own
automobiles which encourages lower population densities.
Automobiles account for not only a decrease in the population
density of the cities but also for an added pressure for developing
level areas near cities. In order to emphasize the extent of influence
of the automobile, it should be noted that in the decade beginning 1960,
the number of motor vehicles on the island increased almost as much as
the population did during that same period. One last factor responsible
for the decreasing urban density is the overwhelming preference of people
-------
- 42 -
buying homes for single-family detached dwellings. This type of low
density development is a major threat to sound land resources allocation
since the amount of land available on the island for urban purposes is
so severely limited.
In many ways, the Commonwealth government has failed to respond
adequately to these problems. Government action has lagged behind in
ending some of the economic incentives offered that encourage urban
sprawl. The Commonwealth government currently provides funds for the
construction of public facilities, such as flood control works and
waste disposal facilities, for all new developments. If the funds for
such facilities were provided only to existing and planned developments,
then this would have a positive effect towards ending urban sprawl
since it would mean that the costs of public facilities for unplanned
developments would have to be borne by the land developer and/or ultimate
homeowner. A haphazard planning process accompanies many developments
on the island. For instance, land for a new development is obtained as
needed, meaning that the developer, in all likelihood, will be forced
to pay astronomical prices for land. This creates several problems.
First of all, the developer is unable to acquire enough land to plan
an organized, attractive development; secondly the developer is left
with little land profit which could potentially be used to provide a
higher quality development. Another problem which this brings out is
that it causes the developer to refrain from using a site which may
be physically more appropriate for his project in order to defend himself
against unreasonably priced land--thus the developer is forced to skip
over the best land site because of inflated land prices.
-------
- 43 -
This factor accounts, in many instances, for the seemingly random
location of many public and private developments. Thus, in general,
the island's land development process caters too much to short term
economic forces (i.e., inflated land prices), without giving due con-
sideration to the best use that a parcel of scarce land could be put to,
and without duly considering the natural variety of the land.
Puerto Rico is paying a heavy price for its unplanned development
and haphazard sprawl in diminished environmental quality. According
to the Environmental Quality Board's 1972 Environmental Report:
Nearly all our waters are polluted. Only in the
highest headwaters of a few streams is the flow-
ing water safe to drink. The quantity of pollu-
tants is rising rapidly, responding to increased
population and production and consumption.6
The Puerto Rico Planning Board is attempting to take a land use
approach to control future water pollution by preparing a land use
plan for the location of contaminating industry. However, to end water
pollution from existing land uses a minimum expenditure of $300 million
would be required. Thus, the 1972 Environmental Report estimates that
because of the cost, a decade or more will be required to satisfy these
•7
needs.'
Although not as serious a problem as water pollution, air pollution
is increasing with the growing number of automobiles in use and with
increasing pollution from stationary sources. SCL concentrations are of
concern, exceeding national primary standards in four locations, mainly
near the major power plants and petrochemical plants. Similarly, hydro-
Q
carbons and carbon monoxide levels are on the rise. Solid waste disposal
-------
- 44 -
is still on a fairly primitive level as open burning takes place at
municipal dumps.
Although strategies and techniques for alleviating these environ-
mental problems are being developed in Puerto Rico at this time, it
is essential that steps be taken to curb the land pollution that has
been responsible for many of these other forms of pollution.
There are a number of specific measures which if applied in Puerto
Rico may have an effect of decreasing urban sprawl. One area is to
give government agencies such as the Environmental Quality Board or the
Puerto. Rico Planning Board more statutory authority over the processes
of urban expansion. The Planning Board has zoning power over "urban"
areas, but it lacks the general authority to zone on an islandwide or
holistic scale. This holistic authority is important for controlling
urban sprawl, because unplanned developments, especially along highways
in rural areas outside of the "urban areas," are establishing today
the urban patterns for the future. A recent move which will undoubtedly
have a positive effect in the future land use outlook on the island is
the establishment and implementation of an environmental impact statement
process whereby government agencies and private firms must analyze the
effects on the environment of any project prior to its initiation. This
q
statutory power was given to the Environmental Quality Board.
Another way in which the Commonwealth government could control
urban sprawl is through tax reform. Ironically, although high property
tax levels make rational land use planning extremely difficult in the
Hnlted.States, in Puerto Rico, residential property tax is almost non-
existent; A.series of political maneuverings have exempted all homeowners
-------
- 45 -
with residential property of less than $20,000 assessed value from paying
any property tax. Thus, the Commonwealth operates under continual
fiscal crisis, and little money is available with which to fund land
use planning. In addition, Puerto Rico cannot profit from such funding
sources as revenue sharing (as the states can) and incomes in Puerto
Rico are often low enough to preclude extensive dependence on income
tax revenues. Thus, increase in property taxes could be beneficial
in implementing land controls in Puerto Rico, at least for the time
being.
Increasing import taxes on all motor vehicles entering the island
may also produce a decrease in urban sprawl. Since motor vehicles
are partly the indirect culprits of urban sprawl on the island, primarily
because of the increased mobility which they give the auto-owners and
the pressure that they create for more highways, a decrease in the abso-
lute numbers, or at least, a decrease in the rate of increase of
automobiles on the island would tend to slow the rate of urban sprawl.
Of course, such a move must be accompanied by the development of an
efficient mass transportation system, which would provide the populace
with a cheap and rapid means of getting about--to work, school, etc.
Another area where the federal government can have a favorable
effect on the critical land use situation on the island is by tightening
the funds it provides the island for highway construction--a reduction
in the rate at which new highways are constructed will surely produce a
reduction in urban sprawl.
The Commonwealth government can also exert its power of the purse
by refusing to provide the costs of providing public utilities in unplanned
-------
- 46 -
developments, thereby decreasing the economic incentives for such develop-
ments.
All of the measures discussed up to this point are aimed at arresting
haphazard or unplanned urban development. Yet it is important to bear
in mind a prime consideration--houses are being constructed because
there is a demand for them. Obviously the urban explosion in Puerto
Rico has as one of its principal driving forces the legitimate need or
desire of island residents for homes and other facilities. Measures
which seek to protect the island's land resources by curbing this desire
for more homes will not work. It is important that, at the same time
that the measures discussed above are implemented, that people be given
i
an alternative to today's style of homes and to the urban sprawl that
abounds throughout the island. One alternative is to stimulate intensive
development in specific areas, thus providing for these needs with high
density urban developments. The Puerto Rico Planning Board will allow
high density developments of 23 dwellings per acre and possibly 60 dwell-
ings per acre as long as such a project is within the overall plan
of the Board for development in the area in question. Such high density
developments would be of inestimable value in terms of their effects
on the conservation of level resources. It is important to keep in
mind that living in a well-planned high density development can be a
very pleasing and aesthetic experience. In fact such high density
developments would, by virtue of their intensive land use, make more
land available in the immediate urban setting for open space.
-------
- 47 -
The biggest stumbling block currently faced by high density develop-
ments in Puerto Rico is the island's residents overwhelming preference
for single-family detached dwellings. Ways of making living in high
density development more appealing to the majority of prospective home-
buyers on the island must be found. To this effect it may prove fruitful
to conduct a study which would determine precisely why the population
has such a great preference for single-family detached houses. En-
vironmentally sound alternatives to that life style that incorporate
the attractive qualities of single-family home living should be de-
veloped.
-------
- 48 -
FOOTNOTES
Section I - Urbanization and Fringe Development
4. Case Study: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
1. Environmental Quality Board, Environmental Report-1971, Report to the
Governor (San Juan, Puerto Rico: Office of the Governor, May, 1971)
2. Ibid.
3. Puerto Rico Planning Board, Politica Sobre Uso de Terrenes (Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico Planning Board, 1970)
4. Ibid.
5. Environmental Quality Board, Environmental Report-1971.
6. Environmental Quality Board, Environmental Report-1972, Report to the
Governor (San Juan, Puerto Rico: Office of the Governor, April,1972),
p. 13.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Section 4(2)(c) of Law 9 requires the preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements in connection with proposed governmental actions that could
significantly affect the environment. Almost identical to Section 102
(2](c) of the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act, the statements are
intended to assure that environmental factors are both considered by
agencies, and also, widely explained and discussed.
10. Puerto Rico Planning Board, Politica Sobre...
11. See "EQB Attacks Waste of Land", The San Juan Star, June 28, 1972 for
a discussion of this issue in Puerto Rico. However, single family homes
are obvious extremely popular throughout the whole United States as well,
and are a major aspect of suburban development patterns. Only recently,
have there been signs to indicate that apartment construction is again,
slowly increasing (after the single family home boom that began after World
War II and continued to accelerate). The elderly and the young are showing
strong interest in apartment living, and condominiums and cooperatives are
gaining widespread popularity due to the tax shelter that they supply, and
because they represent an investment rather than a rent payment. However,
in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico there are numerous non-economic motivations
for home ownership, many of which have never been systematically investigated
It is easy to speculate that social class motivations, the quest for privacy,
-------
- 49 -
11. (cont.) racism, the lack of safety in many major cities, the environmental
degradation of the cities all play a part in the exodus to single family
homes in the suburbs. However, considerable amounts of research are still
required, for whatever the motivations are, they are leading to land use
development patterns which make the attainment of environmental quality
extremely difficult.
-------
- 50 -
SECTION II
TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
1. The Urban Transportation Crisis
In urban areas, and in particular, in an urban area as dense as
the New York Metropolitan Region, survival depends upon the efficient
movement of goods and people.
Eighteen million people live in this region and depend upon the
so-called "balanced transportation system" of the area to get to work,
recreation, shopping, etc. Theoretically, this concept of "balanced
transportation" refers to an interface of modes, in which the most
practical mode or modes is used in a particular instance with connections
to different transit means at appropriate points. However, it must be
pointed out that this system is merely theoretically workable.
If any city in the United States offers a variety of transportation
facilities, it is New York. Around two million people travel into
Manhattan alone each weekday on the journey to work. Of these people,
roughly 1.4 million use the subways, 200,000 come by bus, 140,000 drive
or ride in a car and 100,000 use the commuter railroads. Ferries,
the three huge metropolitan area airports, taxis, private planes and
boats, and even helicopters are responsible for bringing still more
people into the city each day.
Yet, despite this, the automobile is becoming increasingly more
responsible for the squandering of our land and the deterioration of
the quality- of life in the New York Metropolitan Region, and in
;. .
particular, in the inner-city. In a hearing of a subcommittee of the
New York State legislature, Jerome Kretchmer, New York City's Environ-
mental Protection Administrator testified that:
-------
- 51 -
At the beginning of this century, the automobile
was hailed as the emancipator of the common man.
Today, that dream has become a nightmare...We
see these cars clogging our streets, endangering
our lives, fouling the air, assailing our ears,
devouring our open space. Nowhere are these
problems more intense than in New York City.^
Fortunately, most commuters in the New York Metropolitan area use
mass transit in one form or another. New Yorkers use public trans-
portation more than residents of any other city in the United States,
and in turn, 80% of the public vehicle miles operated in the United
States are in New York City.
The large number of transit riders in the New York area however,
has not prevented either the increasing use of automobiles nor the in-
creasing environmental degradation to which the city is subjected.
This trend towards the use of automobiles can be traced to many causes.
Among these are the development of the highway systems around the region
which encouraged the use of automobiles and the decentralization of
housing and employment which occurred as mobility increased. For many
residents of the region, the highway systems around New York City
represent nothing more than a means to get from New Jersey to Long
Island or Connecticut.
Although the reasons for increased use of automobiles in this
area are many, the increase is occurring at an alarming rate at the
same time that use of transit facilities has been gradually falling
off. The Tri-State Regional Planning Commission and the Regional Plan
Association studied this phenomenon and found that while fewer people
are coming into the Central Business District (CBD) of Manhattan each
-------
- 52
day, there has been a continual increase in the number of automobiles
traveling to or through Manhattan's business district for the last 23
years. By 1971 there were a half-million more cars entering the CBD than
there were in 1948.
This increased and continued car usage is readily apparent if
the urban landscape is examined. Every mile of freeway uses up to 30
acres of land, while interchanges use approximately 80 acres. The
automobile itself uses up a great deal of land as well as requiring
approximately 300 square feet of land in its home garage, 300 square
feet in its place of destination and 200 square feet of land for those
places that repair it, sell it and service it. If these figures are
applied to New York City, and if current trends continue, an appalling
future awaits New York:
As new housing is built, as the final goal of 11
million inhabitants is reached, and as old housing
is replaced by new housing, all 11 million in-
habitants of New York will have to have one car
space per family unit. That will give us about
3 million automobiles in New York City. These
3 million automobiles will need as their living
space, 4.8 billion square feet of area or 120,000
acres, most of which will be ground area. The
total land area of New York is 204,000 acres.7
Nor is land the only resource that automobiles squander. During
1970, the New York City Department of Air Resources estimated that
private cars, taxicabs, buses and trucks poured out 77% by weight of
o
all the city's air pollution. The full effects and costs of this
pollution are just beginning to be felt and quantified. More than
80 ,000 old or wrecked cars were abandoned on New York City streets in
-------
- 53 -
q
1971. Rush hour traffic produces enough noise to cause hearing loss
under continuous exposure. The highways that carry these cars take
land that could be used for parks or housing, divide neighborhoods, and
cost billions of dollars.
Why has this pattern occurred? Does this land use and expenditure
pattern represent the best use of our nation's resources? What do these
Federal and State policies promoting highway development mean for the
operation of EPA Region II?
Unfortunately, there is substantial evidence that the governmental
agencies that promote, subsidize and regulate the development of highways
and other facilities for the automobile are insufficiently aware of the
effects of their actions upon urban growth and development. In turn,
this growth and development leads to both direct and indirect environ-
mental problems.
Highway programs and the development that accompanied them in the
newly accessible areas have shifted the employment patterns of the New
York Metropolitan Region. There is a new trend towards employment in
the outlying areas of New York City. For example, in Westchester County
in 1968, it was found that while 116,000 Westchester residents commuted
out of the county to work, over 80,000 non-residents commuted in.
Another 264,000 people both lived and worked in Westchester. Since
that time, there have been a number of other indications that many
major employers are leaving New York for outlying suburbs.
-------
10
11
BUFFALQ,
ALBANY SCHENECTADY-TROY
WDAMO j-\_ {- ' "-'
I | -v ROCHESTER
0«L£»>.S I N,
BOCWSrER®
* MONBCt
LEGEND
(•) Places of 100,000 or more inhabitants
• Places o! 50.000 to 100.000 inhabiMnts
O Places of 25,000 to 50.000 inhabitants outside SMSA's
Standard Met'opolilan
Statistical Areas (SMSA's)
f-\Y"~"x,y
"1CHMONO -4- ) S_j^££-
10
11
-------
54 -
Part of this phenomenon can undoubtedly be traced to the deteri-
oration of the transit systems of the New York area and the increased
volumes of traffic in the streets, making it difficult to ship goods
in or out. Although employment leaves the city, or moves from other
ares to New York City's outlying counties, New York City's environ-
mental degradation accelerates. Not only is auto use almost mandatory
for intra-county commutation in Westchester, Nassau or Suffolk, as
these counties have grown and developed, they have tended to regard
New York City as an area best left strictly alone--except to pass
through by car enroute elsewhere. There has been little consideration
of the fact that air and water pollution know no political boundaries,
and thus, many suburbanites feel few qualms about car travel through
or in Manhattan.
Due to exclusionary zoning practices and inflated land values, many
unskilled laborers must live in New York City and commute to where the
new opportunities are for unskilled labor--the suburbs. A frequent
mode of commutation in the transit-shy New York suburbs is what has
been described as the heavily polluting "fifty dollar bomb"--a car that
is barely running.
But one of the main factors pushing people towards the use of
automobiles in the New York Regional Area is the deterioration of the
transit facilities and the lack of funds available to improve, expand
and modernize them.
It is true that a major modernization program is currently going
on, and a new 2nd Avenue subway is being constructed with the aid of
City, State and Federal money. However, most of these projects are
-------
- 55 -
far behind schedule already. The new rail link to Kennedy Airport,
for example, was originally scheduled to be completed at this time,
while construction has actually just begun. The money available for
rail construction and modernization (or for any urban transit facility)
is a mere pittance compared to the funds that the Federal government
pours into its highways; thus luring still more people to automobile
use and making mass transit operation more difficult.
It costs about $1 billion a year to run the transit systems in the
immediate New York City area alone. At a recent hearing of the New
York State Joint Legislative Committee on Transportation it was also
pointed out that it will cost $13.5 billion just to meet operating
deficits in the area around New York City from Bridgeport, Conn., to
New Brunswick, New Jersey from 1972 to 1983. Another $7.3 billion
12
would be needed for capital expenses.
Many suggestions, some rather desperate, were made for the future
financing of transit facilities in the region, however one theme
emerged. Each time the transit fares are raised, ridership drops
dramatically. Another substantial fare increase could completely doom
the system, and any financing attempts must look to the general popu-
lation of the area rather than specifically to the transit users. The
rationale for this is clear. All residents of the area benefit from
the existence of transit systems. If there were no mass transit the
air might be completely unbreathable, the traffic flow would become
even heavier, the city and region would choke and strangle on its
own masses. Yet, it is understandable that when funding proposals
for transportation are put to state referendums, the upstate and rural
-------
- 56
areas of the region are less than enthusiastic about supporting NYC's
subways.
One group of proposals made at this hearing dealt with revenue
raising techniques within the limitations of city and state revenue-
raising power.
Among the suggestions made were the following:
1. A mass transit tax on all people who live or work
in the city backed by 100% income tax credit from
the Federal government. At $25.00 per individual
this would raise $100 million for NYC alone.
2. Equitable tolls on all water crossings to New
York City to provide up to $30 million extra per
year for NYC transit, and perhaps discourage
vehicle entry.
3. Zone fares and higher fares for rush hour travel,
lower fares for non-rush hour travel.
4. Higher parking rates for cars that enter the
Manhattan CBD.
5. A If sales tax or cigarette tax earmarked for
transit.
Many of these solutions are unfeasible. Most are regressive,
and would cause even more hardship for the poor of NYC than they are
suffering now. Flat rate taxes pose particular hardships.
Even if newer, less expensive and more innovative forms of trans-
portation were turned to as partial substitutes for some portions of
existing transit facilities, the cost of developing,perfecting and
constructing these facilities would be prohibitive without the signi-
ficant Federal support that does not appear to be forthcoming.
For example, one such innovation, the "dial-a-bus" system which
scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have been in-
-------
- 57 -
vestigating for years could be an important new development in lessening
dependence on the automobile. Computer directed mini-buses would pick
up passengers at their homes and deliver them to other parts of the
city. This system combines the convenience of the automobile with the
advantages of taxi use (i.e., the passenger does not have to find
parking, and less valuable land in mid-town is needed for car storage).
Yet, it is even better than the taxi in that it is cheaper, and the
computer constantly reprograms the bus route eliminating pollution
causing "cruising" for passengers. However, in July 1970 when the
demonstration phase of the project was to begin, Carlos Villarreal,
head of the Urban Mass Transit Administration, withdrew Federal money.
Eventually, some very limited funding levels were given to "dial-a-bus"
projects on a demonstration basis. But this should represent only a
beginning, rather than any kind of end point t for environmental prob-
lems associated with automobile use are accelerating.
Two such problems that will be examined in connection with trans-
portation policy are those of air and noise pollution. To varying
extents, competent land use planning, changes in funding priority and
an increased inter-governmental cooperation and coordination could
help to prevent these problems. Instead, EPA presently deals
with these problems after they have been caused, and expectedly with
only limited degrees of success.
-------
- 58 -
2. Transportation Systems and Air Pollution
During 1970, New York City's Department of Air
Resources estimates that private cars, taxicabs,
and trucks poured out 77% by weight of all the
city's air pollution; 43% of the nitrogen oxides,
67% of the hydrocarbons, 98% of the carbon monoxide
and virtually all of the lead particles. These
pollutants all have had serious effects on human
health.14
New York State has been divided into eight Federal Air Quality
Regions for the purpose of best dealing with these serious air pollution
problems on an individual regional basis. The New York City Metropolitan
Area includes New York City and Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland and Westchester
Counties in New York; nine counties in northern New Jersey and most of
Fairfield County in Connecticut. The New York City Metropolitan Region
is the largest and most complex region in the United States. Its air
pollution problems, well documented over the years, are correspondingly
severe and complex.
Awareness of the dangers to human health, safety and productivity
and the extreme costs of air pollution are now common knowledge. However,
the odds of eliminating the sources of pollution without a change in
the priorities and degree of coordination between governmental agencies
are slim. Complex interrelationships exist among urban growth, trans-
portation system policy and construction, and air pollution. They must
be understood if EPA intends "to protect and enhance the quality of the
Nation's air resources" Many of these same forces are also govern-
mentally funded.
-------
- 59 -
The development and transportation patterns of New Jersey's most
urbanized areas help to illustrate the scope of the problem. The most
urbanized State in the U.S., New Jersey had over 3,000,000 registered
motor vehicles in 1968. The state has the greatest geographic density
of motor vehicles of all the States, averaging over 400 vehicles per
square mile. However, the urban area vehicle density is much higher,
e.g., 1,643, 2,583 and 3,961 vehicles per square mile in Bergen, Union
17
and Hudson Counties respectively. This vehicle density is indicative
of the mobile source of pollution emission problems which exist over large
stretches of New Jersey.
The problem is further aggravated by New Jersey's geographic loca-
tion. It is situated right in the midst of what is fondly known as
"Boswash"--the Northeastern Seaboard Megalopolis. The 15-mile wide corridor
across New Jersey that runs between New York City and Philadelphia has
been called "the most heavily travelled strip of land in the entire
-] Q
United States."
No major improvements in pollution levels can be expected to occur
in the near future in New Jersey if present development and highway
policies continue. The State of New Jersey has around $740 million in
highway contracts outstanding as compared to $645 million in September,
1971 and $319 million in mid-1969 when the last transportation bond issue
-|Q
was passed. The bond issue that New Jersey voters will be voting on
20
this year retains the same 2 to 1 ratio that was approved last time
($410 million--highways, $240 million—mass transit). Already, citizens
have expressed indignation at the prospect of being "blackmailed" into
-------
- 60
voting for highway funds in order to get the far too meager transit
allotment, which would be used among other things for the improvement
of the Erie-Lackawanna rail line, the Penn Central line, an extension
of the Newark subway and the beginnings of a commuter line in the
Hackensack Meadowlands.
State officials have been explaining away the disparities quite
facilely by claiming that "the $240 million for mass transit actually
would attract $760 million in matching Federal aid funds." It might.
But more likely, due to existing federal budget priorities, the $410
million that the state would be putting up for highways would attract
far more than that, especially since part of the money would go towards
completion of the interstate system which receives 90%-10% Federal-State
22
matching funds.
The New Jersey Clean Air Council came to these conclusions in its
1970 Report on the Status of Air Pollution from Mobile Sources:
1. Mobile source pollution has reached levels adverse to human
health in New Jersey.
2. Mobile source pollution has caused damage to the general
environment and to the ecosystems of the State.
3. New car controls already programmed will cause carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbon concentration to decline, but the
increase in the number of vehicles will again cause an
increase in these pollutant concentrations after 1980.
4. After 1980, pollutant concentrations in the State can be
reduced only through (1) introduction of low pollution
vehicles, (2) displacement of private vehicles by mass
transportation systems, and (3) supplemental controls by
the State.23
In January the Clean Air Council expanded on its undefined
recommendation 4. (3). The Council proposed that a "statewide Land
-------
- 61 -
Use Plan be developed to end the hodgepodge building that it said was
destroying vast tracts of open space that could help reduce pollution."
The Plan would include "regional control over the location of employment
and shopping centers, hospitals, industrial parks and large housing
projects; a regional open-space system, the channeling of growth along
predetermined transportation corridors, a 'rational spacing and hierarchy
of highways' and an abolition of exclusionary zoning practices that
'segregate low, moderate and high-income households from their job.'"25
The Council clearly recognized that as automobile density increases,
emission controls will not be nearly strong enough measures. In addition,
an attack upon the air pollution problem caused by automobiles that also
seeks to alleviate other problems is far superior to a partial solution
to air pollution abatement only. The development of new transportation
modes, and the increased support of mass transit speak to the dilemmas
of misuse of the land versus rational land management, solid waste
disposal, improvement of the quality of life for a wider segment of the
population, etc. While emission controls for individual automobiles,
although a necessary measure, only speak to that wondrous day when
technology will come up with an automobile that doesn't pollute. What
of the land that its roads will use up; the continued sprawl that
resulted when roads are built; the people who are too young or old
or poor or infirm to drive (a sizable portion of the population)?
There are extreme limitations in the current federal approach
towards achieving an improved ambient air quality. One of the most
serious is the difficulty that federal environmental programs have in
-------
- 62 -
countering the efforts of the series of federal step-children known as
state highway departments. Negligible cooperative effort is involved
in the planning of human developments so that intelligent transportation
systems can be evolved and so that high environmental quality standards
are feasible.
The lack of interface between programs that should be integrally
related was embarrassingly obvious at a meeting EPA-Region II held in
September, 1972. This "Transportation Control Meeting" was held because
a number of the urban areas within Region II were experiencing particu-
lar difficulties in coming up with air quality implementation plans
to meet Federal standards, despite having already received one extension.
A fairly large number of the major governmental entities affecting the
transportation and the planning of the urban environment systems of
the New York City Metropolitan Regions attended, over 25 different
agencies in all, although due to the vast bureaucratic structure of
the New York City area this represents only the most major of agencies.
EPA explained that a consultant had been hired to assist the two
states and the urban areas confronted with acute problems towards
developing satisfactory air quality implementation plans. Essentially,
the consultant, TRW Corporation, was hired to:
1. Review implementation plans previously submitted and
rejected with regard to possible transportation control
strategies.
2. Review traffic and transportation patterns in the New
York City area and examine various control strategies
for this area.
-------
63 -
3. Develop emission reduction and air quality estimates based
on different strategies and determine which strategies
yield best results.
4. Define and discuss the obstacles to the implementation of
each strategy.
5. Set up a schedule for the implementation of such a strategy,
including the passage of necessary rules and regulations,
and the resulting air quality and transportation milestones
until the target date of 1977-
However, the consulting firm, TRW, will actually consist of only
one individual working full time for four months to solve the problems
of transportation and air quality in Region II and in particular, the
New York City Metropolitan Region! Although the function of the
consultant is not to actually submit an air quality standard implemen-
tation plan ( that task must rest with the state), he is clearly being
delegated the most difficult portion of the task.
The magnitude of the task becomes clear if one examines the
situation around New York City--the unsatisfactory Air Quality Im-
plementation Plan submitted for that area and the forces affecting
air quality in the Metropolitan Area. The entire air pollution problem
for the New York City Metropolitan Area within New York State has
oz:
been given Priority I for all contaminants. The 8 hour carbon
monoxide average for midtown Manhattan was 32 parts per million
27
(ppm), more than 3 times the allowable average of 9ppm. Despite
this, the new Statewide Master Plan for Transportation in New
York pays mere lip service to environmental problems and scarcely
mentions air pollution. The following excerpt is the oly discussion of air
-------
- 64 -
pollution that could be readily found in the entire Policy, Plans § Programs
section of the Plan, released in July, 1972, long after it was apparent
that many areas of the state were experiencing difficulty in devising
satisfactory implementation plans.
It is clear that the major potential for improvement in
air and noise pollution from transportation in urban
areas is by strict and effective enforcement procedures
to ensure meeting legislated standards for vehicle air
and noise pollution. For the short term, restrictions
on vehicular traffic for specific limited times and
places may be necessary to meet environmental standards.
Transportation-system development has distinct limita-
tions for lessening environmental pollution. 28 (Emphasis
supplied by this author.)
In other words, the New York State Department of Transportation is
placing the major burden for meeting air quality standards upon the
other branches of state government responsible for enforcing federal
law and devising an implementation strategy. In their view, they are
not responsible for the pollution from automobile traffic using the
extensive highway system that the state has built with extensive
federal funding.
Thus, they defend themselves:
The most ambitious transit program proposed in any
urban plan and the complete cessation of new highway
construction would not result in more than a five-
percent reduction in the overall amount of urban
highway travel, and that travel would generate higher
rates of pollution because of its congested flow. 29
Needless to say, they do not cite a source for that sweeping
statement. One wonders if they have heard of the New Jersey Lindenwold
Hi-Speed Line which runs between southern New Jersey suburbs and
-------
- 65 -
Philadelphia, scant miles from the New York State border. Run by
the Port Authority Transit Corporation of Pennsylvania and New Jersey
(PATCO) ,it began service on February 15, 1969 and its number of riders
has been climbing steadily ever since. Considered a model of mass
transportation, the line has a central tower in Camden, N.J., in
direct communication with the operating console of every train. Only
one operator rides aboard each train, while all stations are automated
and unattended as is ticket purchase. Television
cameras monitor the whole line reducing vandalism and crime to the
minimum, while the train runs at 10-minute intervals most of the day.
It presently has over 40,000 riders each day, many of whom are former
motorists who park-and-ride. These people had never before ridden
buses or other public vehicles regularly.
There are many areas of the New York Metropolitan Region that would
undoubtedly lend themselves to the effective operation of such an
automated line. However, given the direction in which the New York
State Department of Transportation has allocated its budget, such in-
novations are unlikely to occur. Although it is true that the state
DOT is contributing sizable portions of money to the improvement of
existing transit facilities and the creation of new subway lines in
the New York Metropolitan Area, the DOT is planning on spending far
more on highways, especially on urban highway improvement. The DOT's
minimal objective for urban transit is $8.6 billion, or the equivalent
of obligating $430 million annually over the next 20 years. However,
the minimal objective for urban highway expenditures is $12.55 billion,
plus an additional $3.85 billion to be spent on intercity highway con-
-------
- 66 -
•z 2
struction. Almost twice as much will be spent on highways as transit.
The $8.6 billion for public transit represents an annual decrease over the
total amount obligated in the three year period 1968-71 (during which the
transit portion of the 1967 Transportation Bond Act was completely
obligated). '3 j^ is an improvement over the years prior to that,
but no great accomplishment in light of the problems that are becoming
increasingly apparent.
The May 1972 New York City Metropolitan Area Air Quality Imple-
mentation Plan assumes that stronger controls will be exerted upon the
state DOT by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
i
This will undoubtedly force the state DOT to become more aware of air
quality in their future transportation plans; however, it is unlikely
that this will help the state devise an air quality implementation plan
that will meet Federal Standards by 1975. This is because, while the
1970 Federal Aid Highway Act requires that the Federal Department of
Transportation establish guidelines to insure that new highways are
consistent with a state's air quality implementation plan, very few
"new" highways will be built in the New York Metropolitan Area. Much
of the money will be spent on highways in the state, and,particularly
in the New York Metropolitan Area,will go towards the renovation and
improvement of existing highways. Thus, while these highways will
be able to carry more traffic which will generate more pollution, they
are outside of Federal highway law as it relates to air quality.
In general, EPA must begin working towards a long-range preventative
approach to air pollution to avoid continually dealing with crisis
situations. This means that EPA must get involved in the land use
-------
- 67 -
planning and transportation planning that lead to air pollution rather
than continuing to rely upon exhaust and fuel standard regulation. Air
pollution control devices cannot be relied upon to clean up after the
damage has been done. EPA must expand so that it is dealing with
cause as much as effect. To that end, EPA must communicate more
effectively and extensively with major agencies in the Region concerned
with land development and transportation planning. Regular meetings
should take place--not just when air quality implementation plans are
due--but perhaps on a monthly basis, with EPA acting as environmental
consultant to any who need assistance or advice. EPA-hired planners
should comment on as many major plans and zoning ordinances as they
can find time for, and let communities know what likely environmental
outcomes they can expect from their plans. By growing more future
oriented, EPA will make its daily functioning much easier and
more efficient.
-------
- 68 -
3. Transportation Systems and Noise Pollution
Few would disagree that noise, or unwanted sound, qualifies as a
pollutant. Besides causing sleeplessness, reducing work capabilities,
frightening humans and animals,and disrupting communication, it has been
demonstrated to be one cause of deafness and hearing loss in humans and
may be responsible for numerous other human ailments as well.34 For
example, since our hearing system is also partially a warning system,
and since the body reacts to loud noise with constriction of the blood
vessels, the shooting of adrenalin into the bloodstream and the tensing
of muscles and internal organs, a link has been tentatively established
between excessive noise and hearing, circulatory and digestive disorders.
Even when excesstlnoise is steady and therefore without
surprise it produces tension and nervousness, which in
turn may take the form of headaches, fatigue, depression
and irritability. Researchers are now suggesting that
noise, rather than overcrowding, may be the main reason
why people who live in large urban centers like New
York so often have a reputation for being brusque and
short-tempered.36
Noise pollution levels are particularly related to transportation
systems. In New York City, where the noise problems have reached serious
proportions, traffic is a cause of most of the midtown background noise
level. The New York City Bureau of Noise Abatement estimates that this
background level noise now frequently reaches 85 dBA in decibels on
the A scale--noise levels Righted to frequencies which effect humans--
during the work week; beyond the noise level where normal conversation
is possible (70 dBA); and •bngerously close to the level where physical
•7J
injury can result from continuous exposure (90 dBA).
-------
- 69 -
Automobiles and trucks play a significant role in generating
noise in any urban area. While they are not nearly as noise polluting
individually as, for example, a 4-engine turbofan aircraft, the total
noise energy that they generate may be as significant in dense urban
areas. This is a function of several factors. Total noise energy will
be higher for noise polluting systems that generate high noise levels,
exist in large numbers and operate more hours per day.^ When considered
in that light, it becomes apparent that automobiles are major contributors
to the noise levels of our cities, since there were 87 million cars in
1970, and the number grows each day. In addition, there were 19 million
trucks in operation, which are generally far noisier than
automobiles. 9
EPA has calculated that noise energy levels for elements of the
transportation system and found the following results: while highway
vehicles--trucks and autos--were responsible for a total of 7,300 noise
energy units (Kilowatt-Hours/Day) locomotives, freight trains, high
speed intercity trains, rapid transit trains, passenger trains, city and
school buses and highway buses all together only contributed 1,271.93
noise units. ^0 Admittedly, a large percentage of the non-transit highway
vehicle noise-energy total can be attributed to medium and high duty
trucks. Nevertheless, automobiles still contribute some 1,800 noise
energy units--more than the combined total from all forms of transit
(excepting aircraft use).
Noise from highway vehicles can be attributed to three major sources:
1) rolling stock (tires and gearing), 2) the propulsion system (the engine
and related accessories), and 3) aerodynamic and body noise. Tire noise
-------
- 70 -
increases with speed until it becomes, at about 50 mph, the principal
source of noise for highway vehicles. At speed below 45 mph for trucks
and 35 mph for automobiles, engines are responsible for the most noise.
Most states have chosen to attempt to monitor individual vehicle
noise as their main attempt at monitoring transportation-created noise
pollution. Forty-three states have legislation requiring that ground
vehicles use mufflers, while 15 states restrict noise from horns and
five have set limits on total vehicle noise based on subjective stan-
dards. Enforcement of these regulations is often far from zealous.
New York City has attempted to take a comprehensive approach to
its noise pollution problem with the New York City Noise Control Code
of 1972. Many of the sections of the Code focus upon transportation
related noise and its control. For example, Section 5.03 sets decibel
limits on motor vehicles of all sizes that includes city driving con-
ditions (slow speeds and narrow streets) as well as highway driving
conditions. But most noteworthy in the approach of New York City
towards noise pollution control is its attempt to deal with land use
within the context of the Code, a facet of noise control sadly ignored
by most other state or municipal agencies.
The Code begins with a base of noise laws that many states and a
few municipalities currently have; that is, the common law nuisance
regulations which prohibit "unnecessary noise." These include, for
example, the laws which prohibit horn blowing (except in case of emer-
gency) . The Code then sets specific decibel limits for sound-producing
devices for which there is currently available noise abatement equipment.
-------
71
Finally, an attempt is made to place those noise-level standards within
the context of intelligent land use planning. The Code does this by in-
troducing the concept of ambient noise standards which it defines as
individual noise limits within a particular zone of the city that will
be related to the land uses planned for that zone. Thus, for example,
Article IV of the Code contains a section (4.21) which allows the New
York City EPA Administrator and the Board of Health to declare certain
sections of the city as "noise sensitive zones" in which the public
health requires more stringent standards of prohibited noise.
This is a step in the right direction towards alleviating noise
pollution in already developed areas. However, land use controls must
be used much more often and effectively to limit the necessity, when
possible, of developing extensive noise control codes or expensive noise
abatement equipment. It is certainly far more desirable to prevent
incompatible land uses from occurring in order to achieve aesthetic
quality, including noise control.
To an extent, a number of municipalities attempt to do this at
the present time through their zoning ordinances. It is not infrequent
for noise levels to be mentioned explicitly within the ordinances.
However, it is not unlikely that a local zoning board would make a
variance or exception for a noisy but lucrative industry
that would bring in significant new tax revenues. But if municipalities
lag on the use of land use controls to limit noise pollution, state
governments are even more lax. According to EPA's Report to the President
and Congress on Noise, as of last year, Minnesota was the only state
-------
- 72 -
making any significant attempt to control noise through land use (in
this case, by exercising state control over zoning around new state-owned
«. ,46
airports.)
It is unfortunate that land use is considered so seldom and so
inefficiently in relation to noise control, because it could be of
much help in minimizing the effect of highway noises. For example, it
is possible to predict what noise levels can be expected from a given
roadway. Planners, builders and highway designers must be persuaded
to use and be assisted in using available techniques in order to co-
ordinate highway development with compatible land uses (in terms of
noise levels and otherwise). According to Peter A. Franken and Daniel
G. Page, one way to help further "acoustic compatibility" is by develop-
ing highly simplified tests and screening procedures that even people
without special skills in acoustics can use to make "first-step"
decisions as to possible suitability .
They point out that noise levels along highways depend on many
different variables including the distance from the roadway to the
observation point, the total volume of traffic, the average speed of
traffic, the percentage of trucks in the total traffic volume, the
slope of the road, the type of road surface, the surrounding terrain,
and the location of artificial and natural barriers. Extremely com-
plicated programs are available to assess what noise levels can be
expected when information on these conditions is supplied. However, a
much simplified version of this procedure may be performed to help
determine during the initial screening period where potential noise
problems are likely to occur. The only information required for this
-------
- 73 -
procedure is the distance from the roadway to the receiver, the number
of cars and trucks per hour, and their average speed.
Law requires that some type of noise evaluation system be used in
the planning of all highways. Policy and Procedures Memorandum 20-8 of
the Bureau of Public Roads issued January 14, 1969 stated that environ-
mental effects which the state or local sponsor seeking Federal aid
must consider include "noise, air and water pollution." The 1970 amend-
ments to the Federal-Aid Highway Act (P.L. 91-605) state that the
Secretary of Transportation must "assure that possible adverse economic,
social and environmental effects have been considered" and that he is to
"develop and promulgate standards for highway noise levels compatible
with different land uses after July 1, 1972."
However, this legislation may have relatively little impact. The
New York State DOT scarcely mentions noise in its Statewide Master Plan
for Transportation. "Transportation-genera ted noise is another environ-
mental impact..." says the plan. Further, the DOT has shown little
concern in its design of highways in the state for possible impacts of
noise pollution (see Richmond Parkway Case Study).
Theoretically, EPA should be able to force a federal-aid highway
project to consider noise impacts of the project through Environmental
Impact Statements (EIS) (Section 102C-NEPA). However, in Region II at
least, that would be extremely difficult. In general, the Federal Highway
Administration has been turning out large numbers of impact statements,
many of them incomplete. At the same time, Region II's entire
noise division consists of one part-time employee. It is virtually im-
-------
- 74 -
possible to carefully evaluate every statement that comes to EPA under
those conditions. In addition, much is still unknown about noise and
its effects, and it would be very difficult to stop the construction of
a highway (which the DOT could doubtless prove was "vital") on the grounds
of inadequate noise controls.
Under Title IV of Public Law 91-604 (The Clean Air Act) Section
402C, Federal agencies are required to consult with the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency on their current noise generating
activities that may create a nuisance. It is important that through
this mechanism EPA disseminate information on land use and the ways
in which it can relate to both the generation of noise and noise control.
EPA Region II should attempt to hire more staff for its noise division,
particularly, staff with some skill in relating noise to land use.
That staff could then provide technical information and services to
any other federal, state or local agency in the region interested in
preventing noise pollution through preventive land use planning. EPA
could conceivably help interested communities develop land use control
strategies for noise control purposes. However, funding and legislation
should be sought as well as legislation to allow EPA to help communities
to acquire key parcels for more effective noise control (around airports,
for example). Possibly some kind of program could be developed in coopera-
tion with HUD which already is involved in the development of comprehensive
urban noise survey methodologies, metropolitan aircraft noise abatement
policy study, etc.
-------
- 75 -
It is vital that in the area of noise pollution, as in all
other environmental problems, EPA move towards an approach that
emphasizes the prevention of the problem before it occurs. There
are ways of developing transportation systems that minimize the
impact of noise. As demonstrated earlier, in the composite sense, mass
transit is less noisy than automobile use, which is a compelling
reason for the increased development and funding of transit systems
rather than highways. However, additional research is necessary to make
transit much quieter than it currently is. Subways, in particular, can
generate noise levels that are extremely uncomfortable. In New York
City, although new lines will be quieter, the old lines can generate
noise levels of 90 dBA on the subway platforms. Wheel screams cause
48
noise peaks of 109-114 dBA. Although many of the new trains are air-
conditioned and have sealed windows (and thus are fairly quiet inside) ,
this does not help the people waiting for the train on the platform.
However, inadequate amounts of time and money are being put into
research for quieter transportation systems. In the same way, far too
little is spent on transit itself.
-------
76 -
4. Transportation and Federal Fiscal Policy
The partial solution to New York City's transportation and environ-
mental problems is obvious--greatly increased funding by the federal
government. The reasons why this has not happened have been numerous
and demonstrate most accurately the ways in which the different agencies
of the federal and state governments are working at cross purposes with
each other.
In 1969, the Federal Highway Trust Fund collected $5 billion from
taxes on gasoline, tires and auto accessories. When this money is
combined with taxes collected by the states, the total amounts to a $15
49
billion a year road building fund. Although in 1972 the Senate approved a
measure by which up to $800 million could be used for transit, it has
failed to receive approval by the House, and representa a mere
pittance of what is needed if our most dense urban areas are to be
saved. The fund had a $3.6 billion surplus in 1971 as the construction
of the interstate system, the ostensible purpose for the funds, nears
completion.
Even legislation designed to assist urban areas is grossly inadequate.
The Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970 stated that:
"The Congress finds...that it is imperative, if efficient,
safe and convenient transportation compatible with sound-
ly planned urban areas is to be achieved, to continue and
expand the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964; and
that success will require a Federal commitment for the
expenditure of at least $10,000,000,000 over a twelve
year period to permit confident and continuing local
planning..."51
-------
- 77 -
How optimistic of Congress to feel that the whole urban transporta-
tion crisis can be fixed with $10 billion over 12 years, give or take a
little, when about half that amount is poured into the highway systems
each year. $10 billion would not even pay all of the operating expenses
for just the New York Region Transit Systems over that twelve year period.
In other ways, the meager allotment of transit funds discriminate
against urban areas such as New York. Formulas for federal aid distri-
bution limit funds to 12%% for any one state--a grave hardship to the
New York Region that contains most of this nation's transit. In addition,
funds may neither be used for capital outlay nor for debt service.
However, realistically, it must be acknowledged that it is not optimism
that keeps transit appropriations so low. Rather, it is the highly
visible highway and road building lobby along with the massive auto-
mobile industry that is partially responsible for the strangulation
and rot of our cities. Not very surprisingly, it was reported in 1969
that forty-four members of Congress held interests in oil and gas
52
companies. And on a more local scale, J. Burch McMorran, former head
of the New York State Department of Transportation, has belonged to the
Highway Research Board and was a past president of both the American
Road Builders Association (AREA) and the American Association of State
Highway Officials. This becomes more relevant when the membership of
these organizations is examined. For example, AREA has 5300 members
representing the entire highway construction industry as well as state
and federal highway officials and members of Congress.
Thus, because of federal and, to a lesser extent, state fiscal
policy, a large portion of the work of EPA and its state and local
-------
- 78 -
counterparts consists of almost futile cleanup operations after the
implementation of other federal programs, the highway program being a
notable example.
To be fair, it is important to note that not all of the New York
City Metropolitan Area's problems, transportation or otherwise, can be
blamed upon the federal government. Far from it. The state, and to a
lesser extent, the city itself, must share the blame.
For, to a marked extent, the city has only a limited measure of
legal authority with which to control its transportation destiny, and
thus, its ultimate fate. In recent years, the historical pattern that
has given the state control of major transportation development in the
New York Metropolitan Area has accelerated.
This can be readily seen if a few of the agencies controlling the
development, management and revenues of the New York City area transit
systems are examined. One excellent example is the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA).
MTA was created in 1968 as a regional approach to transportation
planning and management; however, several incongruities appear. Most
notable is the composition of the Board of the MTA. MTA's legislatively
mandated responsibility for public transportation extends to the five
boroughs of New York City plus the seven outlying suburban counties--
Dutchess, Nassau, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk, Westchester. But
their main ridership is in the immediate New York City area. Their own
figures show that of the 8,017,379 passengers served daily throughout
the whole MTA system, about 6.5 million passengers used the facilities
right in New York City.54
-------
- 79 -
Despite this, the only input that the Mayor of New York has into the
MTA is the "power" to nominate three of the nine MTA Board Members,
all of whom must Ultimately be appointed by the governor. The Mayor
also has power to veto any transit capital project over $1 million in value.
In turn the MTA controls the New York City Transit Authority and the
Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority whose assets formerly belonged
to the city.55
-------
- 80 -
FOOTNOTES
Section II - Transportation and Environmental Pollution
1. The Urban Transportation Crisis
2. Transportation Systems and Air Pollution
3. Transportation Systems and Noise Pollution
4. Transportation and Federal Fiscal Policy
1. New York City Planning Commission, Plan For New York City: A Proposal,
Vol. I: Critical Issues (New York: New York City Planning Commission,
1969), p. 48.
2. New York City Environmental Protection Administration, The Car is Anti-City
.(New York: New York City Environmental Protection Administration, n.d.)
3. New York City Planning Commission, Plan For New York City, I.
4. TH-State Regional Planning Commission, Monthly Report, July, 1972.
5. U.S. Congress, National Transportation Policy (The Doyle Report), 87th
Cong., 1st sess., 1961. ~"^
6. "A Cure For the Highway Epidemic: A Balanced Subsidy," Suffolk University
Law Review (Spring, 1971), p. 904.
7. Ibid.
8. New York City Environmental Protection Administration, The Car is Anti-City.
9. New York City Environmental Protection Administration, Solid Haste
Operations in New York City (New York: New York City Environmental
Protection Administration, n.d.)
10. Lenox Hill Hospital, Can Noise Harm Your Health?, Environmental Memo. No. 1
(New York: Lenox Hill Hospital, n.d.)
11. Westchester County Department of Planning, Westchester's Economy (White
Plains, N.Y: Westchester County Department of Planning, August, 1970), p. 35
12. Testimony at Hearing of New York State Joint Legislative Committee on
Transportation, New York, September 21, 1972.
13. Environmental Action, Earth Tool Kit: A Field Manual For Citizen Activists
(New York: Pocket Books, 1971), p. 108.
14. New York City Environmental Protection Administration, The Car is Anti-City.
-------
- 81 -
15. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York City
Metropolitan Area Air Quality Implementation Plan (Revised May, 1972)
pp. 1-5—1-6.
16. The Clean Air Act. P.L. 91-604 (December 31, 1970) Sec. 101 (b)(l).
17. New Jersey Clean Air Council, Report of the New Jersey Clean Air Council
to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Report of the
New Jersey Clean Air Council on the Status of Air Pollution From MobfTe
Sources. July. 1970. p. 4.
18. George M. Raymond, "Issues in Non-Metropolitan Growth: An Overview"
(paper presented at the Non-Metropolitan Growth Conference, Trenton,
N.J., September 12, 1972)
19. "Highway Boom May Be a Short-Lived One," Home News, January 31, 1972.
20. State of New Jersey, Chapter 46, Laws of New Jersey (1972), approved
June 1, 1972.
2\. "State Moving to End Transportation Pinch," New York Times, May 21, 1972.
22. A function of the 1956 Federal Aid Highway Act (70 Stat. 378) which represented
an all-out national commitment to complete an interstate and defense high-
way system. It provided for a 41,000 mile system to be completed by 1972
(since extended for several more years) linking more than 90% of all cities
having populations of 50,000 or more. To assure success, the Federal
government now finances 90% of this system.
23. New Jersey Clean Air Council, Report of the New Jersey Clean Air Council...
on Air Pollution.
24. "Jersey Clean-Air Panel Offers A Plan to Curb Pollution Perils,"
New York Times, January 8, 1973.
25. Ibid.
26. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York City. ..
Air Quality Plan
27. Statement of Ken Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region II
at EPA Transportation Control Strategy Meeting, New York, September, 1972.
28. New York State Department of Transportation, Statewide Master Plan For
Transportation in New York: Policies, Plans and Programs, Prehearing Draft
I New York State Department of Transportation, July, 1972), p. 20.
29- Ibid.
30- "Lindenwold Line: A Good Example of Mass Transportation," New Jersey
Environmental Times. June, 1972.
31- New York State Department of Transportation, Statewide Transportation
Master Plan, p. 49.
33- Ibid.
-------
- 82 -
34. Environmental Action, Earth Tool Kit, p. 260.
35. New York City Environmental Protection Administration, A Guide to the
1972 New York City Noise Control Code (New York City: New York City
Environmental Protection Administration, 1972), p. 2.
36. Ibid., p. 3.
37. Ibid.
38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to the President and Congress
on Noise (Washington, D.C: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December
31, 1971), p. 2-73.
39. Ibid., p. 2-59.
40. Ibid., p. 2-74.
41. "EPA Analysis of Noise Problems Points Way to Future Legislation,"
Automotive Engineering (April, 1972)s p. 31.
42. Ibid., pp. 31-32.
43. New York City Environmental Protection Administration, Guide...to Noise.
p. 6.
44. Ibid., p. 1.
45. Ibid., p. 5.
46. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report...on Noise, p. 4-13.
47. Peter A. Franken and Daniel G. Page, "Noise in the Environment," Environ-
mental Science and Technology (February, 1972)
48. New York City Environmental Protection Administration, Guide...to Noise,
p. 3.
49. Helen Leavitt, Superhighway-Superhoax (New York: Ballantine Books, 1970),
p. 10.
SO. "Group Trying to Unlock Highway Trust Fund," Asbury Park Evening Press,
January 25, 1972.
51. Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970. P.L. 91-453, 84 Stat. 962
52. Ronald A. Buel, Dead End: The Automobile in Mass Transportation (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), p. 227.
53. Leavitt, Superhighway-Superhoax, p. 107, 145.
-------
- 83 -
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Facts (New York: Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 1971).
Joseph McC.Leiper, Clarke R. Rees, and Bernard Joshua Kabak, "Mobility
in the City: Transportation Development Issues," in Agenda For a City:
Issues Confronting New York, ed. by Lyle C. Fitch and Annmarie Hauck
Walsh (New York: Institute of Public Administration, 1970), p. 410.
-------
84 -
5. Case Study: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey;
Transit versus the World Trade Center
The regional approach to transportation management and planning
is a good one only if it is combined with extensive inputs from each
locality concerned. Although the MTA is one example of a regional
authority that ignores the most demanding and difficult segment of its
region, the Port Authority is an even better example of the ways in
which New York City's most acute needs are subordinated to political
expediency and--in the case of the Port Authority--to profit.
This bi-state agency was created in 1921, allegedly to create a
mechanism that would "close the jurisdictional gap between the two
states and remove the transportation decision-making process from the
'petty' influence of local municipal government." In this way, control
of the policies and actions of the Port Authority was placed with the
legislatures and governors of the two states, and thus, supposedly
well in hand.
If this was the plan, it has failed miserably. The Port Authority
is now blissfully independent, and it may well be the only agency in the
New York region with surplus funds and profit-making capability large
enough to begin to solve some of New York's transportation problems.
However, not only is the Port Authority largely exempt from financing
transit at the present time; it has been engaging in programs and
practices that have aggravated New York's environmental crises still
further.
How did this come about? A number of allegations have been made
that are fairly well supported by data. In 1962 legislation was enacted
-------
- 85 -
which enabled the Port Authority to build the vast World Trade Center,
2
now nearly completed. However, a number of bonuses came along with
that mandate, most notably the section which the Port Authority has used
to prevent its involvement in mass transit. Essentially, that section
states that in order to protect the investment of the bond holders of
the Port Authority (PA), the PA shall not "apply any of the rentals,
tolls, fares, fees, charges, revenues or reserves...for any railroad
purpose.. .other than permitted purposes..." Permitted purposes only
included the trans-Hudson transit lines, freight operations, rail
construction on vehicular bridges owned by the Port Authority and those
railroad facilities that the Authority has "certified" to be "self-
supporting" or within a "permitted deficit" range that they themselves
4
shall determine.
The main catch in their mandate seemed to be the "gentlemen's agree-
ment" that they would assume the operation of the broken down transit
lines between New York and New Jersey known as the Hudson Tubes, although
they had a continuing estimated annual deficit for operations of more
than $12 million. However, their reluctant agreement to take over
operation of the Hudson Tubes has gained them far more than they have
lost. Because of this agreement they were "given" the World Trade Center,
and in addition the Port Authority convinced the legislatures of New York
and New Jersey to make statutory covenants with the Port Authority bond
holders granting assurances against the further dilution of the already
pledged revenues and reserves by the operation of any other deficit
-^
commuter rail project. It should be recognized to the credit of the Port
Authority that the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the Hudson Tubes
provides mass transit for well over 100,000 commuters daily.
-------
- 86 -
This legislation enacted many years ago has ultimately affected the
environment of the New York Metropolitan Area most profoundly. The
effects stem from two sources: first, the exemption of the Port Authority
from further involvement in mass transit, and second, the construction
of the World Trade Center.
The Port Authority's published surplus was $72.5 million last
year, but this figure is eminently deceiving.
In testimony before the New York State Joint Legislative Committee
on Transportation, Theodore Kheel, respected New York labor mediator,
pointed out this year that if they doubled tolls on just one of their
facilities, the Holland Tunnel, it would support a borrowing of $!-$!.5
billion. Similarly, revenues from the World Trade Center would support
an additional borrowed $1.5 billion. The acting director of the Port
Authority admitted at the same hearing that Port Authority reserve funds
totaled $199 million currently. Such wealth is astounding in the face
of the dire poverty of the rest of the New York area transit programs.
But the refusal of the Port Authority to become involved in financing
and operating transit in the region that supports it is only one phase
of its attack against New York, and perhaps the less direct one. For it
has scored a veritable bullseye with the construction of the World Trade
Center.
It is not just the tallest building in the world, it is the two
tallest buildings in the world, each twin tower rising 100 feet higher
than the Empire State Building to a height of 1,350 feet. But there are
far more sobering statistics associated with it. By 1974 it will be
producing about 50 tons of solid waste and using about 2.25 million
-------
- 87 -
gallons of potable fresh water a day. The peak power demand would be
enough to supply a city the size of Stamford, Connecticut, about 110
megawatts. At current 1/3 occupancy, it is producing 750,000 gallons of
raw sewage a ,day (when fully occupied it's sewage output will equal
that of the state's capital, Albany --2.25 million gallons daily.)
Currently, the raw sewage is being dumped directly into the Hudson
River untreated, and the City's 14th Street pumping station which would
pump the sewage to the Newtown Creek treatment plant won't be finished
o
for another two years. Needless to say, the raw sewage does little to
enhance the water quality of the Sandy Hook area in New Jersey, due to
become part of the Gateway National Recreation Area.
Similarly, the 130,000 employees and visitors the World Trade Center
is expected to attract will have no help in getting to work from the
Port Authority. A Port Authority study has predicted that 43,000 subway
riders will be leaving the Trade Center each day during the peak rush
9
hours (and foisted upon the already overstrained subway system nearby).
The Trade Center is very proud of its elevators, however, which are
considered the fastest in the world.
The argument has been made concerning the Trade Center that many
of the employees and offices will only be moving from other parts of
Manhattan, that no real new growth will be caused by the Center. This
argument is extremely faulty.
For one thing, although it has been demonstrated that concentrated
and aggregated office space is more efficient, a point of diminishing
returns is always reached eventually. In office buildings, it is felt
that this point is reached at about one million square feet, while the
-------
- 88 -
World Trade Center has nine million square feet. "After that, when you
double the size of a building, you're not just doubling the impact on
utilities--you may be quadrupling it," according to one expert.
The environment also does not easily cope with the effects of such
highly concentrated development. If spread over a much larger area not
only would transportation problems be less acute but sewage, solid
waste and air and thermal pollution would be less serious. The 96,000
gallons that the cooling equipment of the Center uses per minute, for
example, and draws from the river, raises the temperature of the river
in the immediate vicinity of the Center by some 15 degrees.
There is, of course, the question of what the Port Authority is
building and managing the World Trade Center in the first place.
Theodore Kheel has pointed out that $50 million dollars yearly are
being supplied by federal, state, city and private subsidy to compete
with private builders. While he feels that the Port Authority should
be involved only in areas where the private sector needs help, instead
it is competing with private industry and using its subsidies to under-
cut floor space rates in other parts of Manhattan.
In May, 1972, the New York State Legislature repealed those portions
of the law exempting the Port Authority from using its money for transit
facilities. This is subject to concurrent action by the State of New
Jersey, expected to be forthcoming, but as usual, the Port Authority has
an answer. It claims that even if New Jersey acts, the repeal of this
restriction will not become effective until its last outstanding bond
issue has been paid off. Since they just sold a bond issue last February,
-------
- 89 -
this would occur in the year 2007. The case is being taken to the
U.S. Supreme Court shortly, where it will be decided if the Port Authority
can be forced to begin financing transit (as readily as it did the $600
million plus World Trade Center.)
-------
- 90
FOOTNOTES
Section II - Transportation and Environmental Pollution
5. Case Study: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
1. Joseph McC.Leiper, Clarke R. Rees, and Bernard Joshua Kabak, "Mobility
in the City: Transportation Development Issues," in Agenda For a City:
Issues Confronting New York, ed. by Lyle C. Fitch and Annmarie Hauck
Walsh (New York: Institute of Public Administration, 1970), p. 410.
2. New York,,Unconso1. Laws, §6606 (McKinney Supp. 1970)
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. "Leeching the Port Authority: A Monetary Transfusion," Suffolk University
Law Review (Spring, 1971), p. 938.
6. New York, Unconsol. Laws. §6606 (McKinney Supp. 1971)
7. Glen Collins, "Notes on a Revolutionary Dinosaur," New York Times Magazine,
August 6, 1972, p.27.
8. Ibid., p. 20.
9. Ibid., p. 22.
10. Ibid., p. 24.
11. Ibid., p. 26.
12. Testimony of Theodore Kheel at Hearing of New York State Joint Legislative
Committee on Transportation, New York, September 21, 1972.
-------
- 91 -
6. Case Study: The Richmond Parkway § The Staten Island Greenbelt
The conflict between the Staten Island Greenbelt and the final
section of the Richmond Parkway scheduled to pass through or near a
number of parts of the Greenbelt is a microcosm of many of the fierce
battles being waged in urban areas over how land should be used.
Some consider this particular Parkway the last of a dying species, and
feel that this particular issue has been resolved. In actuality, the
construction of the Parkway is still very much a question for debate.
Budgetary and political problems have only prevented its completion
up to this point and much of the Greenbelt is being used only for a
wide variety of outdoor recreation at the present time. A brief
history of the issue will clarify the nature of the conflict.
The New York State Highway Department indicates that planning for
the Richmond Parkway began as far back as 1941 when the New York City
Planning Commission adopted its Master Plan of Arterial Highways and
Major Streets that included the Parkway. Other sources imply that
the basic concept for a Richmond Parkway has been considered since
the 1920's. Whatever the precise date, clearly these plans were being
formulated before environmental protection and social criteria were
even superficially a part of a highway planning program. It was not
until 1960 and 1961 that the final plan for the Richmond Parkway was
approved by the New York State Department of Public Works, the City
Planning Commission, the Board of Estimate and the Bureau of Public
Roads. On August 21, 1961 the Board of Estimate authorized the
acquisition of right of way by condemnation, and by July of 1962, 70
-------
- 92 -
residential and 5 commercial tenants had been relocated and the buildings
that they occupied demolished under contracts let by the State Department
4
of Public Works with city approval. Most parts of the Parkway were
constructed with no incident save some difficulty in obtaining funds
for the construction; it was not until it was time to construct Section
I--the section that runs mainly through the Staten Island Greenbelt--
that widespread public opposition began to be felt. Mayor Lindsay,
newly elected to his first term of office asked the State Department
of Public Works to defer construction of Section I in March of 1966
while possible alternate routes for the Parkway were examined.
Section I has still not been completed, and most of the same
alternates that were being considered then are still under discussion,
if not by the State Highway Department, then by varied citizen's groups.
The State Highway Department does not consider the issue of the Richmond
Parkway dead, but only lying dormant. Two-thirds of it are constructed
and they would very much like to complete the remaining third. However,
times and ideas have changed enough so that the basic opposition to the
Parkway is the following: does it utilize the very rare and beautiful
(for New York City) stretch of land known as the Staten Island Greenbelt
in the best possible way?
Much of this is related to the basic concepts underlying parkway
construction. The American Association of State Highway Officials
defines a parkway as, "An arterial highway for non-commercial traffic,
with full or partial control of access, and usually located within a
park or a ribbon of parklike development." However, a publication of
-------
- 93 -
the Office of Environmental Policy of the Federal Highway Administration,
(FHWA) sheds some additional light.
A parkway is managed to provide a highway that serves
recreational needs. Although many urban parkways serve
peak hour commuter traffic demands, this is not their
primary function. The design of the highway itself
and the control of the highway corridor are developed
to provide appurtenances for pleasure driving and
recreation.6
In other words, although the parkway may serve other functions,
i.e., provide accommodations for picnicking and walking, help accommodate
rush-hour traffic etc., its prime function is to provide facilities
6
for driving as recreation. In the words of the FHWA "a parkway is
developed to display a natural environment to the user." As open
space and recreational lands, particularly lands of great natural
beauty, become almost non-existent in the New York Metropolitan Region,
the use of such land for a limited access highway to show off what's
left became highly suspect by many people. The Staten Island Greenbelt
is widely considered to be unique in New York City.
The term, "The Staten Island Greenbelt," currently describes an
aggregation of woodlands and open space which runs along the central
ridge of Staten Island for a distance of about five miles. The
right-of-way for the original route of Section I of the Richmond Parkway
runs through or near much of this contiguous or nearly contiguous open
space which is mainly in public or quasi-public ownership. The 1700-odd
acres of the Greenbelt are dotted with small ponds and lakes and forests
of oak, hickory, gum, beech and sassafras. Many birds and small mammals
-------
RICHMOND PARKWAY
ALTERNATE
ALIGNMENTS
A - WILLOWBROOK PARK F -
B - LATOURETTE PARK G -
C - HIGH ROCK PARK H -
D - MORAVIAN CEMETERY I -
E - RICHMOND COUNTY COUNTRY CLUB J -
POUCH BOY SCOUT CAMP
KAUFMANN CAMP
TODT HILL
STATEN ISLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE
REEDS BASKET WILLOW SWAMP
-------
o
can be found within the Greenbelt as well. As indicated previously,
the uses and ownership of the land within the Greenbelt are many and
varied. A brief description follows of the major users and owners of
the land within the Greenbelt.
Latourette Park--a somewhat elongated park 2% miles long by % mile
across, it contains about 510 acres, a comparatively large area for an
urban park. Considered a limited use facility, it presently contains
low intensity recreational facilities; mainly golfing and woodland
9
trails. The Buck's Hollow natural area lies within the woodlands of
the Park and is an area regarded by National Park Service naturalists "as
a model mini-wilderness in the midst of metropolis."
High Rock Park-Conservation Center--an environmental education
center run in cooperation with the New York City Board of Education
and the Staten Island Institute of 'Arts and Sciences. Set amid 72
acres of century-old oak and tulip trees, ponds and brooks, it teaches
children from all over New York City about their natural environment.
In 1965, this land narrowly escaped subdivision into a housing develop-
ment when the Girl Scouts, the former property owners, decided to sell
the land. The land was purchased by theCity of New York at literally
the last possible moment with the aid of the state. High Rock Park
Conservation Center has recently been declared a National Environmental
Education Landmark.
Henry Kaufman Campgrounds--operated and owned by the United Jewish
Philanthropies of America, the Flora Haas Daycamp maintained on these
grounds' serves 50,000 children, many from the inner city, during the
-------
- 95 -
months of July and August. It also operates a year-round program
12
including activities for the elderly in its heated buildings.
Pouch Boy Scout Camp--provides both short and long-term year-round
camping facilities for city youth. Considered to be the busiest camping
area of the Greater New York Council, it provided 60,000 scout-days of
camping service in 1968.
Richmondtown Restoration "this historic town, dating back to pre-
Revolutionary days, was once the County Seat. A $5 million program
for the reconstruction and re-building of 32 of the old sites is being
undertaken by the Staten Island Historical Society and the City of
New York.
Other land uses in the Greenbelt area which help to keep the land
open and undeveloped are the Moravian Cemetery and the Richmond County
Country Club. Depending upon which route for Section I of Richmond
Parkway is chosen, any of the above mentioned recreational activities
could be markedly affected. Alternate I, the original route proposal
which prompted Mayor Lindsay to ask for a postponement in 1966 would
be particularly damaging as it carves through the heart of the Greenbelt.
Other public facilities, although not in the Greenbelt proper, that
could be conceivably affected by the Richmond Parkway are Willowbrook
Park adjacent to the Willowbrook State School for the mentally retarded,
Susan Wagner High School, and the Sea View Site (an old tuberculosis
care center) on which a Public Health Infirmary Care Building will
eventually be located.
-------
- 96
The possible damages to the public and quasi-public areas which the
Richmond Parkway could affect also had to be reconciled with social
cost, economic cost, damage to private property, highway planning
principles, political feasibility and what legal mandates applied to
the use of parkland for highway construction. The State Highway De-
partment found itself dealing with vociferous public groups of opposing
goals, a feud between Mayor Lindsay and Governor Rockefeller, continually
changing highway regulations and the rapid development of whatever
Greenbelt land wasn't under protection. These have been some of the
many factors that have led to an eight year stalemate on the completion
of the Parkway. However, it is of interest to observe how the political
entities involved dealt with these delays and with each other. It
is not apparent that any political body or personality considered damage
to the environment to be a serious matter except when he/she was placed
in the political limelight or when it was politically sound to hold such
views.
The route selection process itself, once the original alternate
began to be considered in an unfavorable light,was a masterpiece of
illogic and misplaced priorities. The events that have occurred since
1966, when Mayor Lindsay halted construction temporarily, illuminate
the nature of the highway decision-making process and the extent to
which it fails to lend itself to the maintenance of a high quality
environment.
Although many citizens and environmental groups have expressed
disagreement with the original route that the State Highway Department
-------
- 97 -
planned to follow, that is presently the only route for which right-
of-way has been acquired. This is a most significant factor in terms of
the nature of Staten Island. Staten Island legally became part of New
York City in 1898 but was not physically connected to the city until
1964 when the Verranzano-Narrows Bridge was completed. Until that
time, the borough was urban in name only. Little of the island was
developed except a heavily concentrated area known as St. George in
the immediate proximity of the Staten Island Ferry Terminal, the only
transportation means to the rest of New York City. The 1964 population
of 250,500 has already expanded rapidly. The Tri-State Regional
Planning Commission estimates that Staten Island will contain some 480,000
people by 1985.14
This type of population growth across most of the island demanded
a vastly improved transportation network. The State Department of
Transportation considered it to be more important now than ever that
Richmond Parkway be completed, describing it as "a vital link in the
regional arterial network as well as in the Staten Island Highway
system." Little attention was paid to the possibility of developing
new transit systems in conjunction with the rapid growth of the island.
One obvious outcome of the rapid development of the island from
around 1964 on was that there existed a new and sudden difficulty in
securing land for the purposes of public development. The original
route had a right-of-way, but was becoming very unpopular as a result of
the environmental damage it would wreak. If the remaining section of
highway were to be built anywhere else, it would necessitate the con-
demnation of many homes. Each division of government with a vested
-------
98 -
interest in the route location of the Richmond Parkway proceeded to hire
consultants to determine where the "best" location would be. Out of
these consultant reports and subsequent compromises between governmental
agencies, a total of six alternate routes were proposed, each entailing
differential environmental, social and economic costs. The alternates
fall, for the most part, within two general study corridors. One cor-
ridor is basically true to the original route, passing through the
Greenbelt to varying degrees to a termination point with the Staten
Island Expressway at the Sunnyside Interchange. Alternates 1 (the
original), 2 and 3 fall within this corridor. Alternates 4 and 5,
located in the second corridor, veer considerably westward and bypass
most of the Greenbelt. They also terminate at the Staten Island
Expressway, however, at the Willowbrook Expressway Interchange rather
than the Sunnyside Interchange. Alternate 6 was a city-state compromise,
and is essentially the route that the State Highway Department plans
to construct at this point if funds and administrative approval are
forthcoming. It, too, terminates at the Sunnyside Interchange. (See
diagram of Richmond Parkway Alternate Alignments).
There are, inevitably, problems with all of the routes. Consultants
submitted to the agencies that had hired them reports documenting why
the route that they had chosen was the best. However, of paramount
importance in these types of studies was what costs were considered to
be the most important.
The New York City Highway Department engaged Lockwood, Kessler
and Bartlett, Inc., Consulting Engineers, and received their report in
August of 1966. The report did not compare alternate routes and chose
-------
- 99 -
one, Alternate 3, as the most suitable. Significantly, it gave little
weight to the fact that Alternate 3 would have split the Kaufman Camp
in half and also carve across the top of Todt Hill. In its Table of Costs
which lead to the derivation of an obscure "Road User Benefit Ratio,"
the deciding factor in the selection of Alternate 3 in the study, the
only costs that were considered were those of right-of-way acquisition,
construction, engineering services, and the cost of lost investments
(i.e., engineering services for the original route). In a special
addendum to their report, they ultimately pointed out that the original
route was suitable in every respect (emphasis supplied) although the
terms of their contract did not authorize them to compare it to the
17
other routes.
In reply to this, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority hired
their own consultant, Andrews and Clark, Inc., to evaluate the study
of Lockwood, Kessler and Bartlett. This study re-emphasized that the
parkway should be constructed as originally planned since no other
18
alternate would give better service to Staten Island.
Shortly thereafter, environmental groups began to make their
strength felt and the city recommended to the state that Alternate 4,
the overwhelming choice of environmentalists, be substituted for the
original alignment. Late in 1966, the state transmitted a recommendation
for Alternate 4 to the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads which the Bureau
rejected in early 1967 for a number of reasons, mostly related to
administrative practices and highway planning procedure. It did, however,
approve Alternate 3.
-------
- 100 -
The next report to be released was prepared by the Vollmer Ostrower
Associates for the New York State Department of Public Works on the
Staten Island Greenbelt. The report asserted that:
It is our firm opinion that a complete system of hiking
trails, bicycle paths, and horse trails with appropriate
related recreational facilities can be accommodated
within the existing right-of-way and adjacent city-
owned park land in complete harmony with the Richmond
Parkway.19
Many were enraged at the notion of major recreational facilities
bordering a highway- The Greenbelt Emergency Conference had this to
say about the Vollmer Ostrower Study:
Arnold Vollmer (long an associate of Robert Moses)
proceeded to produce a document that shall forever be
remembered for its profound absurdity. Vollmer, in
effect, claimed that Moses' original route could
become "a recreational amenity' by shoe-horning all
the features of the Olms ted Trailway--plus the park-
way itself--into a 300-foot right-of-way. Amenity...
in a median strip.20
The City began to take action to meet some of the Bureau of Public
Roads requirements for the approval of Alternate 4. One necessary
change would have been the change of the Interim Plan by the area-wide
review agency for the New York City Metropolitan Region: the Tri-State
Transportation Commission (now known as the Tri-State Regional Planning
Commission) to insure compatibility of Parkway with Plan. Tri-State
deferred action on the City's request until they received the latest
consultant report on the Parkway and the Greenbelt.
This report was prepared by Wallace, McHarg, Roberts § Todd for
the New York City Parks Recreation and Cultural Affairs Administration.
-------
- 101 -
The report, entitled "The Least Social Cost Corridor For Richmond Parkway"
used a system of overlap maps superimposed upon one another to take into
account such diverse variables as slope, susceptibility to erosion, historic
71
values, forest values, scenic values, residential values, etc. As each
subsequent parameter is superimposed upon the next a pictoral image of
the least social cost corridor is depicted where the darkest areas
represent the sum of social values and physiographic obstructions to a
highway corridor; the lighter tones the areas of least social value.
According to the report:
When the proposed alignments are examined in these
terms, it is seen that the Vollmer Ostrower Alignment
would violate the highest social values and will
incur highest social costs. Route #3 is as culpable,
whereas route 4 and 5 in large part conform to the
least social cost corridor.22
In November of 1968, the Tri-State Transportation Commission
altered its Interijn Plan to include Alternate 4. Alternate 4
remained the favored route until March of 1969 when the New York
State Department of Transportation held the Corridor Public Hearing.
At the meeting the battle lines formed and the political nature of
highway construction and location was unveiled for all to see.
Essentially, all those testifying supported either Alternates 1 or
4. According to the transcript of that hearing the sides broke down
as follows:
Alternate 1: all Staten Island elected officials that testified
as well as those community planning boards ap-
pointed by the Borough President. Neighborhood
groups lying in the path of Alternate 4 and most
business groups also supported 1 since they saw
this alternate as being the most easily and quick-
ly constructed once the decisions were made to do
so.
-------
- 102 -
Alternate 4: the Mayor, elected officials who were not from
Staten Island, appointed officials with executive
responsibilities, other city appointed officials,
conservation related groups, and some of the
neighborhood groups.
Clearly the overwhelming support of Alternate I by Staten Island
Officials had a great deal to do with the general anti-Lindsay sentiments
of the Borough of Staten Island. Rep. John Murphy's remarks at the
hearing in support of Alternate I began with a Lindsay attack:
I would like to open my remarks with the observation
that had it not been for the delays of the Lindsay
Administration, construction of the original route
for Section I of the Richmond Parkway would have been
completed more than six months ago.23
The citizens of Staten Island were rebellious and resentful of
the inadequate transportation facilities to be found in Staten Island,
the highway construction trades were losing jobs because of the delay,
the local businessmen were fearful that without the Richmond Parkway
and its additional traffic capacity their businesses would suffer,
and the conservation groups were adamant about the irresponsibility of
placing a highway through the Greenbelt when other alternatives were
available.
No political official wanted to deal with these competing forces.
Another alternate was simply created scant months before the hearing
but not discussed there as the public focused on Alternatives 1 and 4.
Thus, in February of 1970, Governor Rockefeller sent Mayor Lindsay a
letter explaining to him that he was withdrawing support for Alternate
4, and supporting instead the new alternate, Alternate 6. According to
-------
- 103 -
his letter, the reasons for his support of Alternate 6 were as follows:
1) it saves the Greenbelt, 2) it relieves traffic congestion 3) it
saves the homes of many families 4) it utilizes the already constructed
Sunnyside Interchange 5) it does not infringe on Willowbrook Park.24
Mayor Lindsay's reply made it clear that all the city could do
would be to either accept the state's will or do without the Parkway.
The initiative, of course, remains with the State...
Richmond Parkway is a State highway project. It thus
seems clear that if the State so decides, Alternate 4
cannot be built. On the other hand, without agreement
among all parties, Richmond Parkway will never be
completed. Despite our clear preference for Alternate
4, I believe that the City cannot afford further delay
in getting this necessary road built.25
Since that time, the Department of Transportation has received
state and metropolitan clearinghouse approval (as Tri-State reversed
their decision still a third time) for Alternate 6, the Alternate that
remains with us today. However, there are innumerable problems with
Alternate 6, as there are with any compromise decisions. Some feel
that this compromise incorporates many of the worst features of the
proposals that it was derived from. It also ignores the rapid
development constantly occurring in the land where its right-of-way
would have to be located.
The New York City Transportation Administration commissioned an
alignment study of the Alternate 6 Corridor and hired the Vollmer
Associates to prepare it. The report suggests an alignment which
allegedly insulates the Kaufman and Boy Scout Camps from the parkway.
In addition, it claims that "...All the houses in the way of the parkway
-------
- 104 -
can be moved, and, therefore, none need be demolished. However, those
to be displaced must have assurance that land for this purpose, in their
2
own neighborhood, will be available when they are required to be moved."
The Greenbelt Emergency Conference, a conglomeration of all of the
groups that have banded together to save the Greenbelt, has prepared a
position paper that highlights many of the problems with Alternate 6
that city and state officials have tried to downplay. For example,
they point out that this housing that will be relocated upon city land
will in fact, be relocated upon the right-of-way for Alternate I--the
heart of the Greenbelt now commonly referred to as the Olmsted Trailway,
27
as it is heavily used for nature hikes. A close reading of the
Vollmer Associates Report confirms this, although it is certainly not
emphasized in the report.
Another point that the Greenbelt Conference brings out is that
in strict economic terms Alternate 6 is the most costly of all the
routes given serious consideration. The state's own figures show that
Alternate 6 would have to be 4.7 miles long while Alternate 4 would
only be 3.9 miles. Total cost for Alternate 6 is given as $42.4 million
00
while Alternate 4's cost is listed as $39.4 million. Although these
are 1969 costs, proportions should remain approximately the same.
Moreover, the state's cost of Alternate 4 includes a so-called "lost
investment" of $1.5 million for the Sunnyside Interchange. The state
built this interchange for the Richmond Parkway when they constructed
the Staten Island Expressway. They are extremely reluctant to listen
in an open minded way to the merits of any alternate that does not use
-------
- 105 -
this interchange, i.e., 4 or 5, as they would then have to pay this
money back to the federal government. The costs of losing precious open
space cannot be computed accurately, however it is ironical that the
state could be losing more than it is saving through its false economy.
Still other problems that city and state officials have tried to
obscure are inextricably related to air and water quality and the
effects of noise upon a public institution. Alternate 6 would pass High
Rock Park Conservation Center at a distance of about 1400 feet. The
Staten Island Institute of Arts and Sciences prepared a voluntary
environmental impact statement and filed it with the New York City
Transportation Administration in October of 1971. It stated, in part,
that:
The position of Alternate 6 will have several deleterious
effects on the conservation center. The increase in run-
off caused by the 300 foot wide Parkway construction will
reduce the amount of natural water reaching the ground
water table of the area. If the water table is lowered
by only as little as 1 foot, the damage to trees and
other plant life will be enormous... the loss of the
mature trees in the route of Alternate 6 will have an
effect of High Rock Park almost as serious as the
Original Route (Alt. 1) with respect to the air pollution
created and emanated, and to the loss of wildlife habitats.
It is also possible that Alternate 6 could impose high levels of
air and noise pollution on three public facilities in its proximity
that are used mainly by young people: Susan Wagner High School, Camp
Kaufmann and the Pouch Boy Scout Camp. Alternate 6 would pass so close
to Wagner High as to require the taking of the faculty parking lot.
Vollmer Associates plans call for a separated and depressed roadway at
this point. They also propose the use of an acoustical barrier fence
-------
- 106 -
or wall in combination with the parkway side slope. "This, in combination
with dense planting, will also visually separate the parkway from the
school."30 According to the Greenbelt Emergency Conference, "These
assurances are given without substantive technical evidence that noise
would not, in fact, reverberate harshly within the classrooms of the
high school." They point out, justifiably, that the state of the
art of noise control is still in a rather primitive stage. One notable
example of this lack of refinement occurred in Elizabeth, New Jersey
where in a recent decision the courts awarded the Board of Education
more than $250,000 in compensatory damages because noise from Inter-state
Highway 278 was interfering with the quality of education in a school
32
adjacent to that highway. Air pollution could conceivable pose an
even stronger threat to the students of Susan Wagner High School as
it could to Pouch and Kaufmann Camps.
This is especially interesting in light of all the much heralded
legislation which was passed in recent years in order to assure that
highways and other major public works programs infringed as minimally
as possible upon the natural environment and upon open space and park
land.
The most notable pieces of legislation towards this goal were the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966 and Section 4F of the Department of
Transportation Act of that same year. Combined with NEPA, effective
tools should exist towards curbing highway construction that can take
park land when it is not the last resort and towards protecting the
environment in general. However, the Richmond Parkway has remained
-------
- 107 -
almost impervious to this legislation thus far, for a variety of
reasons, not the least of which are the attitudes of the State DOT.
Section 15 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1966 requires that
the Secretary of Transportation approve a highway location through a
park only when the highway plans include "all possible planning,
including consideration of alternatives to the use of such land, to
minimize any harm to such park or site resulting from such use." A
month later the Department of Transportation Act was passed, including
Section 4(f) which provided that the Secretary should not approve a
highway location through a park unless "no feasible and prudent"
alternatives existed and then, only if the route and design plans
included all possible techniques to minimize damage to the park. In
1968, Congress acted to harmonize the wording of Sec. 15 of the Federal-
Aid Highway Act with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
34
Act and the basic wording of Sec. 4(f) was used. This was noteworthy
because Sec. 4(f) focused more directly on the necessity of examining
alternative routes than did the original Sec. 15. One main substantive
change particularly relevant to the case of the Richmond Parkway was the
35
restriction of the federal protection to publicly owned land, since
a number of key parcels within the Greenbelt are privately owned.
There are a number of ways in which these laws have proved less
than effective than they might have been in the case of the Richmond
Parkway and the Staten Island Greenbelt. For one thing, normally the
State DOT would prepare a 4(f) statement before the first mandatory
public hearing, the corridor hearing. This statement would then be
incorporated in the draft environmental impact statement the DOT would
-------
- 108 -
prepare for FHWA under NEPA. At the time of the public hearing in
March of 1969 no such 4(f) statement had been prepared although the law
requiring 4(f) statements had been effective since April of 1967.
According to a spokesman of the New York State Highway Department, no
such criteria had been sent down from FHWA at that time (almost two
"\f\
years after the effective date of the law). In other words, the
FHWA is in no hurry to have new legislation affecting it or its state
counterparts implemented. For in the truest sense, the FHWA watches
out for and is part of the same family as the State Highway Departments.
Intricate connections between the members of the vast happy family of
37
highway builders have been well documented, and many of them were
educated at the same schools, belong to the same professional organiza-
tions and essentially hold very similar beliefs about the paramount
importance of highways in our society.
This can be observed quite readily in the draft Environmental
Impact Statement that the New York State Highway Department submitted
in August of 1970. Although it dutifully contains a section entitled
"Preservation of the Greenbelt" and another called "Concerns of those
Interested in Protecting and Enhancing the Environment" its deficiencies
were so marked that even FHWA had some harsh words for it. The de-
ficiencies that the State DOT was ordered to correct show that they do
not take very seriously Federal law concerning their activities.
For example, in terms of considering all "feasible and prudent
alternatives" before park land is taken for highway use the 4(f) statement
included in the EIS makes no mention of most alternatives. It simply
-------
- 109 -
compared a few of the most "popular" for convenience sake. The alternative
of simply not completing the Parkway was dismissed in a sentence as being
impossible. In its discussion of the environmental damage that the
Parkway could cause it failed to even mention the existence of High Rock
Park Conservation Center. The State Highway Department has been ordered
to more fully examine alternatives and to solicit statements from all
affected land uses within the Greenbelt and the path of the Parkway as
to what they estimate that the damage will be.
EPA must, at this point in time, play a rather frustrating role
in its review of the Richmond Parkway EIS. EPA must limit itself to
comments concerning the areas over which EPA has a direct mandate. Thus,
although it has been pointed out that even if the route for Richmond
Parkway bypasses the Greenbelt, the detrimental effects of air pollution,
noise and damage to property and vegetation will still occur EPA must
be somewhat more specific than that in order to have some effect upon
the halting of the Parkway. It must deal with probabilities that have
still not been clearly defined. How many cars will really use this
Parkway? How much pollutant will they emit? How much pollutant is
needed to actually cause damage that outweighs whatever the benefits
are of having such a Parkway? It may be impossible to state the answers
to these types of questions with scientific exactitude. Nor can EPA
discuss loss of open space, amenities of life, or beauty as substantive
proof that the Parkway should not be built. Air, noise, water, solid
waste, radiation--this is the stuff of which EPA is made. It is only
after volumes of traffic are producing completely unmanageable loads of
-------
- 110 -
pollutant that EPA is allowed to begin thinking about land use and thus
devise perfectly reasonable standards which are almost inenforceable due
to the magnitude of the problem.
This unsystematic approach to environmental problem solving can be
seen quite clearly in another incident related to the Richmond Parkway.
The New York State Department of Transportation solicited comments from
many governmental agencies concerning the Richmond Parkway. One such
agency was U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD-Region
II). The State DOT wrote to HUD (and numerous agencies) that irYour
views and comments will assist us in determining the positive and
negative impact of this and other alternatives upon the environment and
•70
the area's needs." HUD had no comments whatsoever to make. It would
have been most relevant for HUD to have commented upon what spurs to
growth the Parkway could provide for the region, whether this growth
could be accommodated, and how HUD could assist. In a public hearing
held this year on a proposed master plan for Staten Island, members of
the public expressed grave concern over the sewer shortage on Staten
39
Island, and the wisdom of continued growth without additional sewers.
It should be very much HUD's business to comment on any incentive to
growth, particularly in an area lacking facilities which HUD funds (i.e.,
sewer grants).
However, the lack of attention paid to the system of actions and
reactions that causes land use, environmental, social, and economic problems
was apparent throughout the whole Parkway issue. An active spokesman
and worker for the groups seeking to preserve the Greenbelt pointed out
that all along, the issue was considered a "highway problem" and thus,
-------
- Ill -
highway people dealt with it. It was not dealt with within the context
that it will actually exist--i.e., as part of a dynamic urban system
but rather relegated to an isolated and artificial role.
In an urban area like New York, after a Parkway is proposed
an extended search must be conducted for land on which it can be built.
The odds are excellent that seemingly appropriate land is already being
used for numerous and varied activities ranging from open space to
industry to housing. Something, and usually, some people must be dis-
placed unless the alternative of not building the Parkway is given the
most serious consideration possible. There is no question that this
was not done in the case of the Richmond Parkway. Roads and existing
highways were becoming overloaded, population was growing and so the
classic solution was brought up--another highway. One reason for this
preoccupation with highway building is that state departments of trans-
portation are not equipped with the funds nor the imaginative personnel
necessary to research, develop and provide new forms of transportation
appropriate to areas like Staten Island that are not yet dense enough
(and may never be) to support traditional fixed rail transit to any
significant degree.
They may be forced into developing those capabilities as enforcement
of federal environmental standards becomes more stringent and highway
construction costs continue to increase in all cost realms, i.e., economic,
social, environmental, political. Citizens groups, too, have become more
vocal and have won a number of recent landmark decisions that will un-
41
doubtedly help to protect park land and open space from highways.
-------
- 112
However, even if legislative and legal considerations don't stop or
alter the course of the Richmond Parkway, simple financial ones might.
The original cost estimate was $17 million; the price has been driven
up to over $40 million at this time. The State Highway Department is
fond of pointing out however, that since a number of the pieces of land
in the Greenbelt are not in public ownership, they are being subjected
to heavy development pressures and rising taxes. In other words, what
the State DOT may not be able to get, the subdividers will, if a far-
reaching and comprehensive land protection and acquisition program is
not instituted.
Towards that end, the New York City Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Affairs Administration has undertaken a study to ascertain the best use
use and method of preservation of each vulnerable parcel in that area.
Other organizations have submitted ideas for protection of the land.
One method of protection would be purchase. Unfortunately, the City
of New York does not have the legal first right of purchase on mapped
semi-public and private open space. Until such a time when new state
legislation is enacted, such properties as the Boy Scout Camp and the
Kaufmann Camp can be offered for sale to whomever the owners choose.
If that problem is resolved, the difficulty remains of obtaining the
money to purchase that land.
One likely source of funds are those derived from the sale of
"in-rem" lands--land that the city confiscates for three years of non-
payment of real estate taxes. These parcels are first circulated to
other city agencies to see if they can use them, if not, they are sold
at public aution. The city could acquire additional lands in the
-------
- 113 -
Greenbelt by earmarking funds from the sale of "in-rem" lands on Staten
Island for acquisition of new parks and recreation areas on Staten
Island.
The possibility of obtaining federal funds for purchase of the
Greenbelt lands exists with at least two sources the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and
1970. In particular, the "urban shaping money" of this act could apply
to the Greenbelt area as Staten Island undergoes rapid urbanization
that could conceivably be better channelled by judicious acquisition
43
of selected parcels.
One type of device that would not require fee acquisition of the
land would be the purchase of a scenic or conservation easement. This
easement could be affirmative, i.e., giving the owner the right to use
the land for a stated purpose, or negative, giving the easement owner
the right to prevent the owner of the land from using his land for
certain stated purposes. Payments for easements are made at the time
of the acquisition of the easement and are based on the difference
between the market value of the tract before and after the easement is
imposed.
Leasebacks could also be investigated. In this type of situation,
the city would buy the land from the private owner and lease it back
with certain rights for a finite period of time. Not only would this
allow the city to purchase land at a much cheaper price than it could
be purchased in 10 or 15 years, it could conceivably enable organizations
like the Kaufmann Camp and the Boy Scout Camp to continue operations.
-------
- 114 -
Still other suggestions revolve around the creation of special
zoning districts that could protect the existing uses. A tax exempt
status could even be linked to that type of zoning ordinance.
However, whatever the methods used, what must be kept in mind is
the most judicious use of one of our urban area's most limited resources
--land. It has been pointed out that:
Planning in general, and the location of a highway in
particular, is a political process. While the proce-
dure may seem susceptible to scientific objectivity
and a final determination by the 'expert', not only
the decision where to locate, but even the decision
to build an urban highway is a political one in the
broad sense of the term. 44
If this is kept in mind, then it becomes apparent that the Greenbelt
is a unique resource and should not be used for a highway location. No
scientific formula or unshakable logic decreed that the only possible
solution required desecration of the Greenbelt. It was simply the
easiest solution. However, other solutions can and must be sought.
An obvious starting point would be with an honest evaluation of the
true necessity for the Parkway. A new major roadway along the western
edge of Staten Island is currently being constructed. That may well be
sufficient. Concurrently research must be stepped up on new transit
methods, particularly personal transit systems such as Dial-A-Bus and
people movers. It is possible a development freeze can be put upon
several areas that might have to be used as right-of-way to minimize
condemnation and the wholesale displacement of people, should the Parkway
really need to be built. There are many things that should be done and are
-------
- 115 -
not being done. They would require a complete reorientation of the
premises behind the highway planning and development process however,
and the changes are only slowly beginning. It would be to the profound
advantage of EPA to assist in any way possible, including, if necessary,
in an education program for highway planners that covered the environ-
mental impacts of highways as they relate to federal law. The feasibility
and legality of EPA grants for research into new transportation methods
might also be considered. As long as highways that may not be necessary
are being constructed through urban parks and open space--not only will
the quality of life suffer but EPA's work will be made that much harder.
-------
- 116 -
FOOTNOTES
Section II - Transportation and Environmental Pollution
6. The Richmond Parkway and the Staten Island Greenbelt
1. New York State Department of Transportation, Location Recommendation and
Report for Section I of the Richmond Parkway, Staten Island (Albany, N.Y:
New York State Department of Transportation, August, 1970), Appendix D.
2. New York City Transportation Administration, Chronological Order of
Richmond Parkway (New York: New York City Transportation Administration,
nTdT)
3. Testimony of Congressman John M. Murphy of Staten Island at Richmond
Parkway Corridor Public Hearing, Staten Island, N.Y., March 25, 1969.
4. New York City Transportation Administration, Chronological Order.
5. American Association of State Highway Officials, AASHO Highway Definitions,
1968, p. 9.
6. Federal Highway Administration-Environmental Development Division, Park
and Recreational Facilities: Their Consideration as an EnyirpnmentaT
Factor Influencing the Location and Design of a Highway (Washington, D.C:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1971), p. 25.
7. Ibid.
8. Vollmer Ostrower Associates, The Staten Island Greenbelt: A Report on Its
Significance As An Outdoor Recreation Resource, Prepared for the New York
State Department of Public Works (New York, May, 1967), p. 3.
9. New York State Department of Transportation, Location Recommendation.
10. Greenbelt Emergency Conference, The Qlmsted Greenbelt Trail (New York:
Greenbelt Emergency Conference, 1970)
11. Information supplied by Cynthia Jacobson, Coordinator for Higher Education,
High Rock Park Conservation Center.
12. Information supplied by Mr. Hochran, Camp Supervisor, Flora Haas Daycamp.
13. New York State Department of Transportation, Location Recommendation.
14. New York State Department of Transportation, Richmond Parkway-Alternative
Alignments For Construction From Arthur Kill Road-Richmond Avenue to
Staten Island Expressway (Albany, N.Y: New York State Department of Trans-
portation, n.d.)
-------
- 117 -
15. New York State Department of Transportation, Location Recommendation.
16. Lockwood, Kessler, and Bartlett, Inc., Richmond Parkway Section I:
Study of Alternate Routes From Richmond Avenue to the Staten Island
Expressway. Prepared for the Department of Highways, City of N.Y.
York, 1966)
17. New York City Transportation Administration, Chronological Order.
18. Andrews and Clark, Inc., Report on Alternates Proposed for Richmond
Parkway Contract I, Prepared for the New York State Department of
Public Works (New York, 1967)
19. Vollmer Ostrower Associates, The Staten Island Greenbelt.
20. Greenbelt Emergency Conference, Olmsted Greenbelt Hike: November 23, 1968
(New York, Greenbelt Emergency Conference, n.d.)
21. This type of process is well described in Ian McHarg's book, Design
With Nature
22. Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd, The Least Social Cost Corridor
for Richmond Parkway, Prepared for the New York City Parks, Recreation
and" Cultural Affairs Administration (Philadelphia, 1968), p. 18.
23. Testimony of Congressman John M. Murphy of Staten Island at Richmond
Parkway/ Corridor Public Hearing, Staten Island, N.Y., March 25, 1969.
24. Letter of February 11, 1970 from Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New
York to Mayor John Lindsay of New York City.
25. Letter of Feburary 20, 1970 from Mayor John Lindsay of New York City
to Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York.
26. Vollmer Associates, Richmond Parkway Alternate 6 Corridor Alignment
Study, Prepared for the New York City Transportation Administration
TNewYork: 1972)
27. Greenbelt Emergency Conference, "Position Paper on the Staten Island
Greenbelt/Richmond Parkway," New York, 1972. (Mimeographed.)
28. New York State Department of Transportation, Richmond Parkway-Alternative
Alignments.
29. Greenbelt Emergency Conference, "Position Paper..."
30. Vollmer Associates, Richmond Parkway Alternate 6...
31. Greenbelt Emergency Conference, "Position Paper..."
32. Federal Aid Highway Act of 1966, P.L. 89-575, Sec. 15, 80 Stat. 771.
33. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, P.L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931-50.
-------
118
34. Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968, P.L. 90-495, Sec. 18, 82 Stat. 823-24.
35. 49 U.S.C. § 1653 (f), 1970.
36. Information supplied by Mr. Kilduff, Associate Civil Engineer in charge
of planning for New York City of the New York State Department of
Transportation.
37. See a good portion of Helen Leavitt's Superhighway-Superhoax (New York:
Ballantine Books, 1970)
38. New York State Department of Transportation, Location Recommendation,
Appendix E.
39. New York Post, May 3, 1972, p. 36.
40. Terence Benbow, a Commissioner of the New York City Landmark Preservation
Commission and one of the leaders of the fight to save the Greenbelt
was extremely helpful in providing information about the Richmond Parkway
and the Staten Island Greenbelt as was Robert Hagenhofer, past-president
of the Staten Island Citizen's Planning Committee.
41. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe 401 U.S. 402 (1971).
One particularly important outcome of this decision was that highway
projects may not be considered segment by segment by the Secretary of
Transportation, with respect to 4(F) review. Instead, they must be con-
sidered in totality so that true impacts are more readily apparent, as
segmentation sometimes forces the selection of a most environmentally
damaging route. Another decision important to this area is that of
San Antonio Conservation Society v. Texas Highway Department 400 U.S. 939
(1970).An excellent discussion of these two cases, and a number of
other important issues relevant to highway planning and parks can be
found in the Iowa Law Review issue of February, 1972, in an article
entitled "Favoring Parks Over Highways-A First Step Toward Resolving
the Conflict Between Preservation of Environmental Amenities and Expan-
sion of the Highway System."
42. Information supplied by Mr. Kilduff, New York State Department of
Transportation.
43. Housing Act of 1970, P.L. 91-609, 84 Stat. 1770, 1781.
44. Alfred C. Aman, Jr., "Urban Highways: The Problems of Route Selection
and A Proposed Solution," Journal of Urban Law Vol. 47, No. 4 (1969-70).
-------
- 119 -
SECTION III
OPEN LAND AND WATER AREAS, DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1. Open Space and Environmental Quality
The acquisition, preservation and development (or lack thereof)
of open space are particularly pressing problems in the United States.
Nowhere are these problems more difficult to solve than in our urban
areas where every piece of land has so many potential uses, and so
many competing forces affecting it.
EPA has no direct mandate to deal with open space and recreational
facilities in any way. Despite this, not only does open space affect the
policies and programs of EPA, but EPA's varied functions affect the
availability of open space and availability of land for recreation of all
types. A series of brief illustrations will demonstrate that this is true.
Each time that EPA develops new ambient air quality standards it
affects the incineration process by which many urban areas dispose of
some of their solid waste. New York City, for example, has been
incinerating about 22% of its solid waste and disposing of almost all
of the rest of it in the rapidly filling landfill areas that are spread
around the outskirts of the city. As federal air standards make it
impossible to continue using some of the more obsolete incinerators,
the temporary solution is usually to dispose of that waste that the
existing incinerators cannot handle by barging this waste to the landfill
-------
120 -
areas. Although the intent is only to do this as a make-shift measure
until either new incinerators can be built or other new processes
developed, in effect, because of the expense and time needed to construct
and develop new facilities, this extra burden upon the landfill areas
continues for some time.
In order to relieve some of the pressures upon landfill areas, New
York City Mayor Lindsay and Environmental Protection Administrator
Jerome Kretchmer have seriously proposed that New York City be allowed
to dump its wastes in the ocean. However, with the passage this year
(October 3) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,
EPA has the power to strictly regulate ocean dumping. Although for
the sake of environmental quality it is important that EPA follow the
j
recommendations of the Council on Environmental Quality and greatly
curtail ocean dumping, it must be recognized that at this time such
regulations will almost certainly affect open space in the New York
area.
However, even as EPA affects the availability of open space, open
space affects the functioning of EPA in such diverse areas as air
pollution control, water quality, noise pollution control, etc.
Eradication of greenery deprives humans of a screen against airborne
pollutants, a barrier against noise, a natural thermostat and an
oxygen source. In the United States alone around 20,000 acres of
vegetation are paved over each week.
-------
- 121 -
This becomes particularly significant when the oxygen producing
capabilities of plants are examined. Cornell ecologist LaMont Cole has
calculated that the average acre of green, open land produces about
2,500 pounds of oxygen each year, while a deciduous forest can produce
1,000 times that amount or 2,500,000 pounds per year. In addition,
plants can serve as effective air purifiers since they can absorb
pollutants through the pores in their leaves, and transport them into
the soil. It has been shown that a forest can significantly reduce
the suspended concentration of certain air pollutants.
A study was performed in which the atmospheric concentration of
sulphur dioxide (802) was studied in mid-Manhattan in an area running
from the Hudson River to the East River along 79th Street downwind.
The results showed a 40% dilution of the S07 level at the measurement
L*
point in Central Park. Of course, the absence of pollution-causing
devices within the park itself was in part responsible for the dramatic
decrease, but that, in itself, helps to indicate the importance of
setting aside open space in urban areas.
Plant life, like human beings, can be adversely affected by air
pollution. Many maintain, in fact, that air pollution has a greater
7
toxic effect upon vegetation than upon animals. Ozone is a chief
offender, and is recognized as being the air pollutant that causes
the greatest harm to plants in the U.S. In a study that measured
ozone levels downwind from Los Angeles, it was found that ozone
q
levels were reduced appreciably by plants. However, other sources
indicate that plants show the signs of ozone poisoning if they are
-------
- 122 -
subjected to air containing 0.07 ppm for a four hour period.10 The
study of plant life around Los Angeles showed ozone concentrations
ranging from 0.03 to 0.15 ppm.
Nor is ozone the only air pollutant that can affect plant life.
Paroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) has undesirable effects at a concentration
of 0.12 ppm for six hours; S02 at 0.50 ppm for four hours and NO- at
2.0 ppm for four hours. Florides accumulate in plant tissues, and when
levels of 50-200 ppm are reached the leaves show symptoms of floride
12
poisoning. For these reasons, the ability of vegetation to act as
an air pollution reducer over extended periods of time must be
questioned and further researched.
Although it has been established that 1) plant life generates
oxygen, 2) plant life has a certain capacity to absorb pollutants,
and 3) pollutant levels above that capacity damage the plants, there
has been little systematic study to integrate these factors with the
diminishing amounts of plant life and open space and the increasing
air pollution sources in this country. This may well be an important
relationship for EPA to examine.
Another area of investigation that would be well worth pursuing
is the noise abatement properties of plant life. It has been the
conclusion of a number of studies that trees or tree-shrub combination
buffer strips can have a significant effect on noise abatement under
certain conditions. One of the most important conditions is that of
temperature as sound is refracted towards cooler air. Thus, at night,
when the air temperature is normally cooler near the ground, it is
possible for sound directed above a barrier to be refracted back to the
-------
- 123 -
ground on the other side of the barrier. Generally, however, strips
of trees and shrubs can be somewhat effective in noise abatement.
The noise attenuation by natural forests varies from 6 to 16 db
14
per 100 ft. The amount of attenuation has been found to be more
dependent upon the density than the species of trees in the stand.
The highest attenuation recorded in the study was cited as 8-16 db/100 ft.
in a cedar stand where visibility was limited to 60 feet.
Much more study is needed to find the most effective buffers to
use. It has been shown so far that 100 foot buffers are effective in
buffering highway noises, however, possible harmful effects of the
automobile exhausts upon the trees should be taken into account.
Clearly there are numerous other examples of the ways in which
open space and the presence of land set aside for recreation is relevant
to EPA. It would be beneficial to elaborate upon the ways that current
land use practices and policies make the preservation of open space
in urban areas so difficult, and the need for urban open space so
great.
The fight for open space proceeds on a number of levels. There
is the necessity of finding small plots of land in dense urban areas
and preserving them for recreational use, and the relief of density.
In rapidly urbanizing areas whatever suitable land is left must be
acquired immediately, before it is lost to development. In rural
areas protection of the abundant resources is necessary to insure
their continued existence for many years to come. However, the
obstacles to these goals are numerous and range from
-------
- 124 -
politics of individual communities to the financing of open space
acquisition.
About 770,000 acres of land will be needed to meet the recreation
needs of the 27 million people expected to live in the Tri-State Region
17
by the year 2000. That figure does not include extensive grounds
for camping, hiking and hunting since such use of land is difficult to
justify directly in immensely dense urban areas; however, it does include
virtually every other kind of recreational activity. Of the 770,000
acres needed, about 160,000 acres are expected to be set aside by such
nongovernmental groups as golf clubs, scout camps, boat clubs, etc.
Federal, state and local governmental agencies already own about 230,000
18
acres, thus 380,000 acres must be somehow obtained if these figures
are to be assumed to be accurate.
Where these 380,000 acres can be found is somewhat of a dilemma.
For example, New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the
country-- averaging 953 persons per square mile. The population has
been increasing at the rate of about 100,000 people per year at the
same time that the amount of open space keeps decreasing. According
to the Report of the New Jersey Commission on Open Space Policy:
In gross acreage, to be sure, there is still a great deal
of open space. The great bulk of this acreage, however,
is massed in a few large areas. In the urban areas where
there are the most people and where the need is greatest,
there is the least space. What space there is, further-
more, is growing dearer and coming increasingly under
development pressure. So, too, is rural land...In such
places the landscape may seem reassuringly untouched, but
that is only illusion. Long before the signs go up and
the graders start to work, the speculators will have cast
the die. 20
-------
- 125 -
For, unfortunately, whatever land would seem eminently suitable for
open space is also most sought after as land for private homes. In the
words of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, priorities for
recreational land "will be easy to overlook since, unfortunately, the
most valuable recreation Jand is frequently the best for home sites as
well. Conservation land appears to cry out for 'improvement' and hard
21
pressed taxpayers are anxious to attract revenue-producing facilities."
There are numerous critics of the present entrepreneurship approach
to the development of land who have collected data to try to convince
a community that conserving land as open space will not ultimately cost
them more than the development of that land. This, of course, does not
even attempt to put dollar values on the many psychological, social and
health benefits of living in a community with adequate open space.
A notable example of a cost study occurred in Lloyd Harbor, New
York when Robert Moses announced his intention to purchase the land now
used for Caumsett State Park from the 1,426 acre Marshall Field Estate.
After Lloyd Harbor residents raised an opposition to this much land
being removed from their tax rolls, the village board hired a group of
planning consultants to more accurately assess the costs. Their findings
were most significant: It would cost almost an additional 20% per tax-
payer, an extra $2.58 per assessed $100 of property value to have this
land removed from the tax rolls. However, they also set up a statistical
model to calculate what costs might be if this land were actually develop-
ed, based on 2 acre plots containing houses worth $35,000 each. Under
those circumstances the increase would be $7.31, nearly three times as
much.22
-------
- 126 -
Still another approach to assessing the cost of open space is the
one that Ian McHarg uses. According to his system, all surface water and
riparian lands as far back from the banks or shores as would keep the
water body stable would be high priority open space. Included would
be all marshes and wetlands, as well as all flood plains and all aquifer
recharge areas where water percolates into the ground. If one looks at
the aquifer in New Jersey parallel to the Delaware River, the implications
of McHarg's policies become clearer. This aquifer has been estimated
by the Soil Conservation Service to have a potential capacity of one
billion gallons per day. A water value of 12<(: per 1,000 gallons (the
water price in Philadelphia) would lead to a value of $40,000,000 per
year. Capitalized, this makes a very valuable piece of real estate,
providing that the water recharge areas are not covered over by develop-
9?
ment.
-------
- 127 -
2. Open Space For Urban Areas: Federal and State Policy
What of the inner-city residents and their open space and
recreational needs? Ringed in by the suburbs, inner-city residents
of New York are effectively isolated from many of the recreation
facilities and much of the open space of the region. Facilities such
as Jones Beach State Park not only fill by 8 or 9 a.m. on hot summer
Sundays, they are virtually inaccessible except by automobile, eliminating
many inner-city residents. This acute inner-city shortage of open space
and recreational areas is a most serious matter. The National Advisory
Commission on Civil Disorders discovered that grievances concerning
inner-city recreational facilities were some of the most common
complaints of a large majority in the twenty cities studied.
However, unusual effort and imagination are needed to provide
open space and recreation in a city like New York or Newark. One way
in which New York City has been attempting to turn a deficit into an
asset is through the use of the open space that arises out of urban
blight. Declines in small businesses and their inability to pay
property taxes have forced many shopkeepers and landlords to leave the
inner-city. There are now vacant lots where these tax delinquent
tenements and abandoned businesses once stood; about 24,000 of them
according to the Open Space Action Institute. Although many were
being used as neighborhood garbage dumps, at the same time a number of
agencies were interested in financing and assisting in turning these
lots into "vest pocket parks" or "parklets."
-------
- 128 -
The city began purchasing these lots until money ran out; then
turned to HUD for money from the open cities, model cities, and urban
25
beautification programs. Community action groups play a key role in
converting these vacant lots into parks and useable open space. The
City's Department of Real Estate rents the lot for one dollar a month
to any responsible person or group that can get liability insurance.
This applies to any unused lot that the city owns that can be found in
any particular neighborhood; the group may use the lot in the way the
community deems best. The Department of Public Works will pave the lot,
and the city will provide park equipment if it is desired, however the
26
community is responsible for all maintenance.
This vest pocket park approach is a good but limited effort to
provide additional open space and recreational areas for urban people
However, in many of the more important ways Federal and State policy
often slights urban areas in favor of the acquisition of open space
in the more rural areas where it is not needed as urgently. In the
urban or rapidly urbanizing segments of the country (and in all of the
New York City Metropolitan Region), money is urgently needed before it
is too late to purchase some or all of the rights in the open space
land.
Back in 1968, the Regional Plan Association pointed out that:
The total cost of purchasing the land now and paying
interest on long-term loans would almost certainly be
lower than the total ccjst of the land later on, after
it is surrounded by hoyses, stores and highways. This
is particularly true i$ government waits to buy a
prospective park until';a builder has purchased the
land for a project, which has happened several times
recently.^7
-------
- 129 -
Yet, government programs have until very recently stubbornly given
the vast bulk of the park and open space money to areas that still have
some time before development pressures hit. For example, the State of
New Jersey used a great deal of its 1961 "Green Acres" Bond Issue ncney
to purchase public open space holdings in the counties that already
had the most open space. In Atlantic County which had 33,786 acres,
6,500 acres were added; in Burlington County which had 98,521 acres,
8,000 were added; in Cape May County which had 11,312 acres, 26,000
acres were added. At the same time, relatively little acquisition took
place in the heavily urban areas of Bergen, Essex, Union and Hudson
counties--a total of only 5,900 acres were purchased for those four
28
counties.
In the New York State Environmental Bond, the majority of
the $175 million earmarked to be spend on land resources will be spent
for land far from the state's urban areas. Lower land values will
enable the funds to purchase more acreage in rural areas; however, even
small parcels of land can be of crucial importance to densely built up
urban areas. The bond allots no more than $77.5 million for open space
acquisition in or around the urbanized areas of the state: $18 million
for the acquisition of 5000 acres of valuable tidal wetlands in private
ownership; $4.5 million for preservation of unique natural areas in the
Hudson Valley, Metropolitan New York and Long Island; $40 million for
metropolitan parklands; and $15 million for open space within or near
9Q
urban and suburban areas.
It is unfortunate that while New York State Environmental Conservation
Commissioner Henry Diamond bicycled from one urban center to another to
-------
- 130 -
sell his Bond Issue, he did not have the foresight to allocate the
monies more adequately for the majority of the inhabitants of those
centers--the people who haven't the means to vacation in the Adirondack
or Catskill Mountains.
These same types of trends continue at the Federal level. For
example, as of 1969,Connecticut, New Jersey and New York contained less
Federal parkland per capita than any other state except Rhode Island.
Allocations made through the Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by
theU.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) are weighted to favor less
heavily populated states. This can be observed if one looks at past
allocations and formulas for the distribution of aid.
Although the money the Federal government has allocated for the
states to share has risen dramatically in the last three years (from
$62 million to $255 million), allocation formulas among states weigh
heavily against population. Congress has mandated that 40% of the
states' share shall be divided equally among the 50 states regardless
of population or density. The other 60% is divied out on the basis of
need as the Secretary of the Interior sees fit--with several provisos
including one that says that no single state can receive more than 7%
of the total.32
As a result of this, for fiscal year 1972, for example, per capita
allocations for such states as Wyoming and Idaho were $6.44 and $3.28 re-
spectively while the far denser and more heavily urbanized states got
much less--$1.00 for New Jersey and $0.87 for New York.33 The Administration
supported two reform bills in Congress (S.1175 and H.R.4705) which would
have changed allocation formulas to assist urban areas more in the
-------
- 131
acquisition of open space (i.e., raise from 7 to 10% the amount any one
state could receive, etc.) However, the provisions in these bills which
would have benefit ted urban areas were thrown out last year by the
House Interior Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation.
Another problem in the Federal funding of open space rests in a
congressional tendency to lump funds for open space projects with funds
for urban renewal and public facility programs on a competing basis as
in Community Development Bloc Grants under the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1972. In addition, although this fault may be
partially rectified in this session of Congress, neither BOR nor HUD
has the authority to make grants to cover operating or maintenance
expenses. This has particularly grave consequences for an urban area.
New York City has, for example, been running into extreme budgetary
difficulty as it attempts to administer and maintain the 36,913 acres
in its system.
Joseph P. Davidson, First Deputy Administrator of the City's Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Affairs Administration told an Interior Department
forum that restrictions on the use of Federal funds to build outdoor
park and recreational facilities prohibit the money from being used to
help to maintain the facilities or to provide indoor swimming pools and
the like that can be used all year round. He pointed out that in cities,
limited open space is available, and thus construction is needed to
provide recreational facilities that go upward not outward.34
One interesting point to note concerning Federal funding and urban
recreation is that the Department of the Interior has scrapped a study of
American recreation needs that took 6 years and cost more than $6 million
-------
132 -
dollars. It is currently redoing the report and refuses to release
any portion of it, even to one of its own consultants hired to evaluate
the National Park system. According to the Washington Post, the Office
of Management and Budget suppressed the report after it suggested that
it could take more than $25 billion in additional funds to give urban
dwellers "the same amount of nearby recreation opportunity by 1975 that
was available on the average nationwide in 1965."
However, in the midst of the generally inadequate Federal programs
for urban areas, one notable and valuable Federal effort to provide in-
creased recreation availability and open space is the "Legacy of Parks"
Program which has led to the creation of Gateway National Recreation
Area. The Gateway National Recreation Area will be discussed as a
case study in the next section.
-------
- 133 -
FOOTNOTES
Section III - Open Land and Water Areas, Development Patterns and
Environmental Quality
1. Open Space and Environmental Quality
2. Open Space for Urban Areas and Federal and State Policy
1. New York City Environmental Protection Administration, "Solid Waste
Operations in New York City," (New York: New York City Environmental
Protection Administration, n.d.), p. 4.
2. Council on Environmental Quality, Ocean Dumping: A National Policy
(Washington, D.C: Council on Environmental Quality, October, 1970)
3. Charles E. Little and John G. Mitchell, .Space For Survival: Blocking
the Bulldozer in Urban America, A Sierra Club Handbook (New York:
Pocket Books, 1971), p. 22.
4. Ibid., p. 23.
5. Ibid., p. 24.
6. Joseph James Shomon, Open Land For Urban America: Acquisition, Safekeeping
and Use (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971), p. 30.
7. Information supplied by Dr. Paul D. Manion, Assistant Professor of Plant
Pathology, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
8. Saul Rich, "Effects of Trees and Forests in Reducing Air Pollution,"
in Trees and Forests in an Urbanizing Environment (Cooperative Extension
Service, University of Massachusetts, March, 1971), p. 29.
9. Ibid., p. 31.
10. F. A. Wood, "Sources of Plant Pathogenic Air Pollutants," in Phytopathology.
Vol. 58 (1968), pp. 1078-1084.
11. Rich, "Effects of Trees and Forests..."
12. Wood, "Sources of Plant Pathogenic..."
13. Raymond E. Lenhard, "Effects of Trees and Forests in Noise Abatement,"
in Trees and Forests in An Urbanizing Environment, above, p. 36.
14. Ibid., p. 37.
-------
134 -
15. Ibid.
16. Davis I. Cook and David F. Van Havebeke, "Trees May Help Solve the
Traffic Noise Problem," University of Nebraska Quarterly, Vol. 16 (1969)
See also, Davis I. Cook and David F. Van Havebeke, 'Trees and Shrubs
For Noise Abatement," in Trees and Forests in An Urbanizing Environment,
above.
17. Tri-State Transportation Commission, Outdoor Recreation in a Crowded
Region (New York: Tri-State Transportation Commission, September, 1969),
pTTT-
18. Ibid.
19. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, General Social and Economic Characteristics,
1970 Census of the Population, New Jersey.
20. New Jersey Commission on Open Space Policy, Report of the New Jersey
Commission on Open Space Policy, March, 1971, p. 2.
21. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive
Development Plan: Summary (Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board, 1970)
22. Little and Mitchell, Space For Survival, pp. 115-16.
23. Ibid., p. 19.
24. Open Space Action Institute, "Lot About Lots," Open Space Action No. 22
(May-June, 1969)
25. Public Health and Welfare Law, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1500 (a), 1500 (c-1),
1500 (c-2) (1969)
26. "Aesthetic Considerations in Land Use Planning," Albany Law Review,
Vol. 35 (1970), pp. 136-37.
27. Regional Plan Association, The Second Regional Plan: A Draft for
Discussion (New York: Regional Plan Association, November, 1968),
pTl6~:
28. New Jersey Commission on Open Space Policy, Report of the New Jersey..., p. 5
29. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, "Environmental
Quality Bond Act of 1972 Factbook," (Albany, N.Y.: New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, 1972), pp. 15-19.
30. Tri-State Transportation Commission, Outdoor Recreation..., p. 15.
31. The Conservation Foundation, CF Letter: A Report on Environmental Issues
(Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, March, 1972)
32. 16 U.S.C.A. 460
-------
- 135 -
33. The Conservation Foundation, CF Letter...
34. "U.S. Aid is Sought For City's Parks," New York Times. July 16, 1972.
35. "Interior Starts All Over on $6 Million Study," Washington Post, July
17, 1972.
-------
- 136 -
3. Case Study: Gateway National Recreation Area
The creation of the Gateway National Recreation Area is
of the first major indications that Federal funding is beginning to
support a previously invisible effort "to expand the Nation's parks,
recreation areas and open spaces in a way that truly brings parks to
the people where the people are."
Both the Senate and the House have finally passed versions of a
Gateway Bill and agreed upon a compromise bill. Congressman Ryan first
introduced the bill into the House in June of 1969. It is ironical
that it passed only a few short weeks after his death. He wanted what
federal policy and politicking has so long denied inner-city residents
and the urban poor. In his testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on
Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
Ryan stated that:
Gateway is a park for the millions of people not
privileged enough to be able to afford long vacations
or expensive trips. It is for the millions of dis-
advantaged whose summer recreation resources are now
limited to an open fire hydrant or, if they are
lucky, a crowded neighborhood pool...We talk so much
of preserving our wild lands and scenic vistas. But
what is this but rhetoric to the ghetto child of
Harlem who only knows the hot summer streets of his
own neighborhood.2
Gateway will be one of the two first national recreation areas near
major urban centers. It will include about 26,000 acres, taking in
Jamaica Bay and most of Breezy Point in Queens; Floyd Bennett Field;
Great Kills Park, Miller Field and Fort Wadsworth on Staten Island plus
-------
Map : Mew
Ft.
Wadsworth:
South
Beach
Miller
Field
Hoffman Is.
(landfill)
"Great Kills
Park
NEW
JERSEY
Breezy
Point Park
Jacob Riis Park
Ft. Tilden
Earle
Ammunition
Depot
Highlands
of Navesink
Ocean
Ft. Hancock
Sandy Hook
State Park
Proposed Gateway
National Seashore
-------
- 137 -
the beach front running between Great Kills and Fort Wadsworth; Hoffman
and Swinburne Islands of Staten Island and Sandy Hook in New Jersey.3
Up until this point many of these areas have managed to remain
relatively free of development. This has occurred because much of
this land was under government or military ownership (i.e., Floyd Bennett
Field and large portions of Sandy Hook were owned by the DDD, Great
Kills is a reclaimed landfill site, etc.) However, without the creation
of Gateway it would have been only a few years until these lands were
used for non-recreational and non-open space purposes despite its public
ownership.
Jamaica Bay, for example, is heavily polluted in parts. Despite
this, it supports an astounding wealth of birdlife. Prior to Gateway,
various proposals were being made for the construction of new runways
of Kennedy Airport through Jamaica Bay. Similarly, serious consider-
ations was being given to suggestions that portions of Floyd Bennett
Field be used for public housing rather than recreation.
The preservation of this land for recreational use was vital,
especially when one considers the extent to which so many stretches of
land across the country are being purchased and conserved with federal
money that are not near major centers of population. There is no way
that Gateway could be compared to the beauty of Yellowstone or Grand
Teton National Parks. However, this can scarcely be considered important
when the inner-city residents of New York and New Jersey were literally
living right next to the Atlantic Ocean and yet could not even reach the
beaches.
-------
- 138 -
In his testimony to the Senate, Mayor Lindsay pointed out that
Coney Island attracts more than one million people on a hot summer
Sunday—four thousand people to an acre of beach--which is five times
the figure that the BOR recommends. With the creation and development
of Gateway, the more than 20 million people who live within two hours
of some part of Gateway (1/10 of the Nation's population) will have an
accessible recreation area. This becomes most significant when one
considers that the 6 existing national seashores combined serve only a
total population of 15 million people within a two hour trip.
Federal participation was essential to insure the creation of a
recreational area on the Gateway lands. Despite the degree of crowding
at other New York Metropolitan Region beaches, the state and local
governments have lacked the funds to develop any significant portions
of the land that they already owned for recreational purposes. One
estimate for the development of the Gateway area is a five year capital
investment of about $168 million, far above the means of state and
local governments.
However, even Federal participation in the creation of Gateway
National Recreation Area may not guarantee that it operates successfully.
A number of obstacles are readily apparent.
One major difficulty is assuring that Gateway is accessible to
inner-city residents. After Mayor Lindsay's testimony to the effect
that Gateway could not succeed unless the Federal government helped to
make it accessible through low-cost transportation, the proposal went
into a "deep freeze" in the House. It was stalled until Donald H. Eliott,
Chairman of the New York City Planning Commission, stated that "no major
-------
- 139
capital expenditures" would be needed, as a shuttle bus system from
existing subways could provide the necessary service.^
However, even if Mr. Eliott is right, the incident has shown how
reluctant Congress is to assure the success of Gateway in serving those
who need it the most. For example, the area Gateway would include
around Breezy Point in the Borough of Queens is on a peninsula with few
transportation links to the heavily populated sections of New York City.
Other than surface routes through Nassau County to the eastern section
of Queens, only two bridges provide access to this peninsula, the
Marine Parkway Bridge and the Crossbay Bridge. Only one subway line,
the BMT-IND HH train runs to the subway terminal closest to Gateway on
Q
the weekends. Shuttle buses could be run from the proximal subway
lines.
The Regional Plan Association has produced figures to show that by
providing this bus service and an exclusive lane for buses on the Marine
Parkway Bridge, all visitors can be transported adequately to Breezy
9
Point during the first five years of operation. However, this ignores
several factors. Firstly, after those five years were up, if demand
had exceeded capacity, as it almost certainly would, it would take any
number of years from that point until new, additional facilities could
be provided. Secondly, the train-shuttle-bus system is one that would
take two or three round trip car fares per person. At two car-
fares, the cost would be $1.40 per person, or $7.00 for a family of five;
at three carfares this would rise to $2.10 per person or $10.50 for five.
In New York City where 29.6% of all family incomes are under $5,000 a
year this is a substantial amount to spend.
-------
140 -
Federal commitment to Gateway must also include some commitment
to transportation to insure that firstly, the urban poor can actually
get to this national recreation area for city people and secondly,
that the natural environment of the more delicate areas of Gateway
(particularly Sandy Hook) is not ruined by excessive automobile use.
It is the recommendation of the report that the EPA do everything in its
power to promote mass transit access to the Gateway.
Another danger to the success of Gateway, water pollution, will
be examined separately along with a discussion of EPA and New York
City's waste water treatment facilities.
-------
- 141 -
FOOTNOTES
Section III - Open Land and Water Areas, Development Patterns and
Envi ronmental Qua!i ty
3. Case Study: Gateway National Recreation Area
1. Richard M. Nixon, State of the Union Message, January 22, 1971.
2. Testimony of Congressman William F. Ryan at Hearings of the Senate
Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committe on Interior and
Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session
(Hearings on S. 1193 and S. 1852), May 12 and 17, 1971. Gateway
National Recreation Area.
3. "House Votes Bill on Gateway Area But Kills Housing," New York Times.
September 27, 1972.
4. Testimony of Mayor John V. Lindsay of New York at Hearings on Gateway
National Recreation Area, above.
5. Appendix to text of hearings on Gateway National Recreation Area, above,
p. 161.
6. Ibid., p. 162.
7. New York Times. February 21, 1972.
8. Trina Steinberg, "Interim Transportation'^" in Gateway National Recreation
Area: A Discussion of Problems and Suggestions For Development (New York:
Environmental Intern Program of the Mayor's Council on the Environment-
New York City, November, 1971), p. 11.
9. Information provided by the Regional Plan Association to the Senate
Subcommitte on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, above, Table #12, "Immediately Available Capacity to
Breezy Point on Existing Facilities."
10. Information provided by Regional Plan Association to Senate Subcommittee..
Table #5, "New York City 1968 Poverty Levels."
-------
- 142 -
4. Case Study: New York City Water Pollution and Waste
Water Treatment Plant Funding
The pollution levels of the waters in the component areas of
Gateway endanger the success of the recreation area as well as the
health and welfare and quality of life of those living in or near the
New York Metropolitan Region. Present water pollution levels make a
nuflber of Gateway's beaches unsafe for swimming. At some beaches,
levels are so high that even fishing and boating are forbidden.
Undeniably, this is a function of the 1.1 billion gallons per day
of inadequately treated domestic and industrial wastes that New York
City discharges into the waters around it from its twelve major sewage
treatment plants. Another 480 million gallons per day of raw sewage
are discharged into the Hudson and East Rivers. These discharge
levels contain unacceptably high levels of suspended solids, BOD,
coliform bacteria, and heavy metals, vastly unsuited to the waters
surrounding a national recreation area.
Under the Water Pollution Control Act, EPA Region II in July, 1972
issued formal notice to both New York City and the Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commission (PVSC) that gave them 180 days to submit updated
abatement plans. If no acceptable plans are forthcoming, EPA has said
that it will request that the Justice Department pursue legal action
under other laws.
Currently, New York City must upgrade its twelve existing plants and
-------
- 143 -
construct two new ones in order to treat 100% of its effluent.
According to the New York City Environmental Protection Administration,
this construction and modernization program will cost a total of about
$2 billion. One of the two new plants alone, the North River plant,
is expected to cost about $750 million to construct. However, EPA
Region II has done little to alleviate the financial burden of New York
City in its efforts to construct and modernize its waste water treatment
plants. Only an estimated 3-4% of the waste water treatment plant
construction money EPA Region II has to allocate has gone to New York
City.2
EPA Region II had only about $222.4 million to allocate in waste
water treatment construction grants this past year for New York, New
Jersey, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, $141,952,250 of which went
to New York State. Despite the scant resources on hand, it is difficult
to understand how New York City got only 3-4% of the money for the region
with far more than that percentage of the population. In fact, the 1970
census shows that with its population of nearly 8 million, New York City
had almost a third of the 28 million people in Region II and almost half
of New York State's population of slightly less than 18 million.
Ironically, until very recently Federal law allowed up to 55% reimbursement
for this purpose. Fifty-five percent of the cost of the new North River
plant would be almost twice EPA Region II's entire budget for waste water
treatment--admittedly beyond the region's means.
Federal funding policy on a national level has consistently been
oriented away from assisting urban areas with sufficient funds to upgrade
the quality of their waste water treatment facilities. Since the inception
-------
- 144 -
of Federal grant programs for waste treatment works (around 1956) to
mid-1969, the Tri-State Region (NYC and New York counties nearby,
contiguous part of New Jersey and small portions of Connecticut) with
10% of the nation's population has received less than 3% of such Federal
4
funds. Between January, 1963 and June, 1968 Federal grants amounted
to only about 8.6 precent of the expenditures made in the Tri-State
area: around $32 million in Federal funds compared to the $400 million
that the local and state budgets had to supply. Although the nationwide
average for the Federal contribution for waste water treatment con-
struction grants is about 23%, in New York City many projects have
received as little as 1.1 percent of their construction costs from the
Federal government. If Federal money is funding waste water treatment
plants for areas with virtually no population or water problems in
Texas as reported at the Washington EPA Land Use interns meeting, the
grotesqueness of this situation becomes even more apparent.
Theoretically, two potential sources of financial relief are in
sight for the New York area so that the upgrading of the waters around
New York City may be possible. However, this financial aid may look
far better on paper than in actuality. First, the New York State
Environmental Bond Issue will provide $258.6 million to use for waste
water treatment facilities. Another potential source of funds might be
the increased Federal funding participation available under the 1972
Water Pollution Control Act.
Realistically though, not too much faith should be placed in
either of these sources. A serious difficulty is that in the past at
least, New York City projects have been financed by roughly 56% State,
-------
- 145
40° City, and 4% Federal money. Some applications for Federal money
have had to be withdrawn because understandably the State could not
come up with necessary funds to pay for its share. Now. with the
passing of the new bond, the State will have some matching money
available--but still far from enough. For the main problem is that
the State has calculated its participation on the basis of 75% Federal
participation--made possible by new water pollution law--something that
may never occur in New York City under planned Federal budget levels.
1001 Federal participation would take the construction grant money
budgeted for the entire nation to fund just the New York City area,
under current budget levels.
It is difficult to believe that even the much heralded 1972 water
bill will lead to anything like 75% Federal participation for the New
York City area--up 71% over the 4% funding they have currently been
receiving.
* * *
Region II contains large tracts of land characterized by estuaries,
tidal salt marshes, cord grass, mud algae, phytoplancton, and thriving
communities of fish, shellfish, birds and mammals. This rich productive
ecosystem is known as the Wetlands. In the following part of the report
the discussion will focus on the pressures exerted upon this fragile
ecosystem by various land use practices.
-------
- 146 -
FOOTNOTES
Section III - Open Land and Water Areas, Development Patterns and
Environmental Quality
4. Case Study: New York City Water Pollution and Waste Water Treatment
Plant Funding
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II News Release of July
17, 1972, "Fact Sheet I-EPA Actions Against New York City."
However, New York City's Environmental Protection Administration disputes
EPA's figures. They contend that not 480 million gallons per day of
untreated sewage are discharged, but closer to 395 million gallons, 125
million of which will be treated as soon as the East 14th Street pumping
station is completed. In addition, they point out that it is unfair to
compare New York City's treatment process with that of the Pasaic Valley
Sewerage Commission (PVSC). New York City treats a total of 1.2 billSon
gallons per day, and according to a report that the NYC Environmental
Protection Administration has published (New York City Water Pollution
Control Record-!886-1972) the weighted average for their BOD removal is
7W. (See Table III-l-"Flows and Treatment Efficiencies of NYC Water
Treatment Plants"). By contrast, the PVSC performs 15% treatment on
waste water from heavily polluting industrial sources. The authors cannot
determine the accuracy of the New York City Environmental Protection
Administration's claims as compared to those of EPA-Region II, however,
these figures have been presented for purposes of comparison.
2. This information was supplied by Susan Werbe, Press Officer, New York
City Environmental Protection Administration.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Budget for Fiscal Year
ending April 30, 1972, "Construction Grants-Waste Water Treatment
Facilities."
4. Figures provided by the Regional Plan Association to the Senate
Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs at hearings on Gateway National Recreation Area, May 12,
17, 1971, p. 167 of Hearing text.
5. Ibid.
6. Susan Werbe, Press Officer, New York City Environmental Protection
Administration.
7. Richard H. Wagner, "The World Ocean: Ultimate Sump", Environment and
Man, W.W. Norton and Co. Inc., 1970, pp. 153-156.
-------
- 147 -
5. Impacts of Land Use on the New Jersey Wetland Eco-system
Wetlands have generally considered useless mosquity infested swamps
to be dredged, filled and built upon; settled by oil refineries and other
forms of heavy industry; used as dumps and landfill areas; or simply
diked and injected with pesticides to kill the mosquitoes. Scientists,
however, began to notice that the number of shellfish and commercial and
sport fish were dwindling at an ever increasing rate, beaches and popular
coastal resorts were becoming polluted and unusable, floods and damage
due to storms were on the increase, and large numbers of migratory birds
and small mammels were disappearing. These undesirable environmental
effects were also noticed by naturalists, area residents, and vacationers
who began to attribute them to the mass destruction of the Wetlands,
which, after several studies, were recognized as a vital life support
system.
The complex food chain and nutrient recycling systems of the
Wetlands provided many things: a nursery for 70% of the ocean life off
the Atlantic coast, a buffer area with an amazing capacity to absorb
excess water due to storms, a zone to dissolve or dilute various forms
of pollution by tidal flushing, a recreation area for people, a teaming
wildlife habitat, and a place of beauty.
Thus with much public support, the Wetlands Act A505 was passed by
an overwhelming majority of the New Jersey Legislature in September of
1970 and signed by Governor Cahill on November 5th. "Described by its
sponsors as the most significant conservation measure to pass the
legislature in decades, the Wetlands Act of 1970 not only regulates
-------
- 148
construction and development in marshland areas but also launches a
determined effort to salvage or restore the ecological balance. The
Act assigns the state Department of Environmental Protection the task
of regulating land use, i.e., draining, dredging, filling, construction,
dumping, polluting, or altering in any way those areas subject to tidal
action. The user is required to submit a permit to be reviewed and filed
by the Department.
The Wetlands Act is now being implemented in stages. Infrared
aerial photographs are being taken. Wetlands are being delineated
according to vegetation types and other factors which produce identifiable
colors under infra-red light. Public heariifgs^are then held on a
'v.
county by county basis to give the public a chance to comment on the
areas designated wetlands before the Act is implemented in that area.
(Minor changes in the regulations have already been made as a result of
the first two public hearings. Permits are no longer required for
hunting lines and muskrat trappings.) After the public hearings and
necessary changes are made, a second set of photographs are taken.
The regulations are then promulgated and the Act is officially in effect
for that particular county. As of February 1973, five out of eighteen
counties are affected by the Act.
Problems with the Act have surfaced. It is immediately apparent
that implementation of the Act is extremely slow. Although there is
some expected opposition from land developers and owners of large areas
of wetlands claiming that the bill is confiscatory, a bigger problem
exists in that "enforcing the Wetlands regulations pose a major burden
on a presently understaffed and under funded administration."
-------
149
Another drawback has recently been researched and publicized by
the N.J. Public Interest Research Group. Land developers (including a
N.J. State Assemblyman) have been talcing advantage of the time span
between mapping and delineation of wetlands and the actual promulgation
of the regulations. As a result of this loophole, land is being dredged,
filled and developed at a faster rate than would have occurred normally
to beat the deadline of regulation promulgation. N.J. PIRG has
recommended that to correct this situation, the Department of Environ-
mental Protection "apply the broad enforcement powers it was given when
organized...to receive or initiate complaints of pollution of the
environment, hold hearings in connection therewith and institute legal
proceedings for the prevention of pollution of the environment and
7
abatement of nuisance."
At this point, it will be interesting to see how and if these
problems will be alleviated. Otherwise an act originally intended to
protect the New Jersey marine and coastal environments will continue to
lose strength in reality.
Hackensack' Meadowlands:
Encompassing 20,000 acres within northern New Jersey, the Hackensack
Meadowlands constitutes one of the largest remaining tracts of open
space and salt marsh in this region. Located in Bergen and Hudson
Counties, New Jersey, this area has long been utilized as a dumping
ground for over 100 communities, including New York City. Its un-
fortunate location makes it the,, cross-roads of transportation networks --
particularly highways--between New York City and the suburbs of New Jersey.
-------
150 -
In recent times, however, certain State and local officials, as
well as entrepreneurs have recognized the potential financial returns
from development of this area, particularly as a result of its close
proximity to New York City while at the same time its separation from
the problems plaguing New York City. Its unique location has thus
earned it the title, "the most valuable piece of real estate in the
world.
In order to maximize returns to the State as well as to subordinate
individual municipal desires for additional ratables, the New Jersey
Legislature, in 1968, passed the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and
Development Act. This Act created the Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission (HMDC), which was charged with the "orderly, comprehensive
development" of the Meadows. The legislative mandate also noted that
"the necessity to consider the ecological factors constituting the
environment of the meadowlands and the need to preserve the delicate
balance of nature must be recognized to avoid any artificially imposed
development that would adversely affect not only this area but the
entire State."10 Furthermore, the mandate called for the HMDC to provide
a method of disposal for the solid waste generated in the region.
The HMDC, in attempting to address that mandate, published its
final master plan on November 8, 1972, after revisions in its preliminary
plan of October, 1970. The plan, as currently proposed and adopted,
calls for the development of an urban center containing 125,000 inhabi-
tants and 100,000 daily commuters. Unfortunately, the plan as
proposed, although modified in certain aspects, still will not be able
to satisfy the ecological needs of this region. In particular, serious
-------
151 -
deficiencies exist within the Plan in the following areas: air quality
and water resource management; solid waste disposal as mandated by the
Act; and open space requirements of the region.
Air quality:
Presently, the air quality in this region does not meet any of the
standards established for national ambient air quality control. The
adoption of more stringent measures toward emissions control will still
not insure the attainment of standards for particulate matter and hydro-
carbons, according to the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP).13
With the proposed influx of industries into the region as outlined
by the Master Plan, particulate levels may, at best, stabilize with the
adoption of new control measures. However, any chance for a reduction
of such levels would be negated with the introduction of new industries
into the area, in light of the fact that, through improper combustion
operations, additional particulate matters would be added. To invite
more industries into the region, then, would only serve to compound
the situation, even with the most sophisticated control devices.
An indication of the efficiency of such control devices exists
in the example of the proposed incinerator for the Meadows. This
incinerator, the largest in the world, would have a maximum capacity
of 6,000 tons daily. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in its
evaluation, noted that it would probably ..have an efficiency of 97%.
According to them, "a pessimistic, or expected 'worst case,' annual
efficiency of only 95% would likely result in a particulate emission of
-------
- 152
1,370 tons (participate matter) per year."14 This amount, when considered
in the light of existing problems, takes on an added dimension.
Hydrocarbons represent another area where federal standards will
be exceeded. The current standard for hydrocarbons is now exceeded by
a factor of 10 or more in every urban area. With the enforcement of
new, more rigid standards, it can still be expected that the standard
wi-1 be exceeded by a factor of 6 in 1990.
Hydrocarbons, which are contributed primarily by automobiles, will
also be greatly increased with the proposed development, particularly
with the stop-and-go movement of cars anticipated. Hydrocarbons,
combining with nitrogen oxides under the influence of sunlight, converts
to smog. Anyone riding along the New Jersey Turnpike presently is con-
fronted by the prevailing smog conditions within the Meadowlands
district. Such smog affects visability, respiratory health, and agri-
culture. The curtailment of smog caused by automobiles is therefore
important, and must be addressed by the Commission.
Unfortunately, the transportation plan advanced by the Commission
does not aid reduction of hydrocarbons. The lack of appropriately
planned mass transportation facilities can only be expected to increase
(significantly) the amount of air pollutants related to vehicular
traffic. Traffic at the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels can be expected
to increase by 65% and 51%, respectively.16 The Master Plan, for
example, notes that an important provision towards the accommodation of
such numbers daily lies in the upgrade of certain highways in the
Meadowlands district, specifically, Routes 3, 20, and 17, as well as the
Belleville Turnpike.17
-------
153 -
No definite plans for mass transit are put forth. Three "transporta-
tion centers" are mentioned in the Master Plan. Vague plans are mentioned,
for instance, of an expansion of the Erie Railroad's New Jersey and New
York Branch to connect with the Newark line and the PATH system. Yet,
"This connection may initially have to operate as a bus route until
traffic becomes heavy enough to justify rail operation," the Plan Notes.18
There seems little doubt, however, that with the completion of the
first structures within the Meadows, the heavy traffic will readily provide
the justification for such a connection. In the interim between the
evidence of such a need and the development of plans for mass transit,
the increased number of cars will only tend ;to further congest major ar-
teries within the Meadowlands district. At present, the roads, especially
during rush hours, are difficult to travel. Unless an extensive mass
transit system is planned, the roads will not be able to accommodate
the additional 100,000 workers into the region. This, in turn, will
only intensify the air pollution problem.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, in an
assessment of the Meadows Plan, offered numerous suggestions for
minimizing air pollution. In its report, the DEP called for those land
use categories especially vulnerable to air pollution (residential areas,
hospitals, schools, etc.) to be located in areas of lowest pollution
concentration. These categories, dubbed as "critical receptors",
should therefore be located in the western one-half of the Meadows.
Furthermore, such critical receptors should not be located within a
radius of 30 times the stack height of any large 100 ton/yr. or greater
point source. Within the vicinity of critical receptors, buffer zones
-------
- 154 -
of not less than 300 feet should be located along highways, according
to DEP.19
DEP also called for the dispersal of manufacturing categories, in
an attempt to minimize concentration of pollutants.20 They rationalized
that the decreased concentration of industries in a particular area
would result in less concentration of air pollutants.
The HMDC has not adopted either of these recommendations at this
time. EPA, in an attempt to help alleviate the situation, should
strongly urge the HMDC to adopt the suggestions of the DEP. From a
land use point of view, these recommendations would help alleviate
stress in this area.
EPA must also adopt a comprehensive, regional approach to the
problem of air quality. While it is probably accurate that the proposed
incinerator, by itself, would not exceed air quality standards, it could
greatly exacerbate the problem for the region as a whole.
EPA should also request the State of New Jersey to reform its
State Implementation Plan to accommodate projections of the impact
from proposed development. Presently, the Implementation Plan does
not take the Meadows into account. To accurately assess the air quality
for the future, the Meadows must be included in all plans.
Water resource management:
In studies conducted of the Hackensack River and its surrounding
tributaries, it was found that the water quality was very poor,
particularly as a result of neglect from the past. The high concentration
of industries within the district and the relatively few sewage plants in
-------
155 -
the area have contributed to the deterioration of the water quality.
As one report noted, "...the combined information gathered from many
diverse sources all point inexorably to the unhappy conclusion that
the present water quality within the Hackensack River is far from
satisfactory."2
In many sections of the river, the dissolved oxygen level is near
zero.22 According to the Commission, "Penhorn and Berrys Creek can
tolerate no additional oxygen demand loadings (BOD and COD) if any
strategy to improve water quality is to be meaningful."2^
The biological measures once so effective in monitoring the water
quality can no longer function effectively under the burden of the
excessive contaminants. According to the HMDC consultant John J. Kassner,
"The volume of purified waste water and fluiral advective flow is
insufficient either to restrain or to flush out pollutants bought into
the Hackensack River by the daily volume of 4.5 billion gallons of tide
water from Newark Bay."2^ Furthermore, "...as the area continues to be
urbanized, the runoff and sewage flows increase, thus increasing the
organic loads on the river...the assimilation capacity of the estuary
7 c:
is static or decreasing as the eutrophic load increases,"" there exists
a great need for treatment of the effluent discharged by both industries
and the municipalities in the region. However, the sewage plants in the
area--Little Ferry, Bergen County Sewage Authority, etc.--are already
operating at capacity or over-capacity levels. New plants will have to
be constructed to accommodate the 125,000 new residents as well as the
daily commuters.
Certain financial considerations must be taken into account in the
construction of these plants. Presently, the Bergen County Sewage
-------
- 156 -
Authority plant is operating at capacity, with a load of 50 million
gallons per day (mgd). Although plans are underway for the expansion
of the plant to 62.5 mgd, the facility is reported to be only fourteenth
9ft
in the State-wide priorities. With the current freeze on funds from
the Water Bill by the Nixon Administration, it seems unlikely that
funds for construction of this plant, as well as some of the others
in the region, will be forthcoming in the near future.
EPA should encourage the Nixon Administration to release all of
those funds authorized by Congress in the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act amendments of 1972. Until such funds are made available, EPA
should actively discourage all parties from further construction
within the Meadows.
Furthermore, the future supply of potable water within the Meadows
must be supplemented. According to Kassner, "It has been reported
that a shortage of potable water may soon occur in the Hackensack River
basin unless new potable water sources outside the basin are developed
and utilized. Comprehensive development of the Hackensack Meadowlands
district can be expected to compound the possibility of a water shortage.
The Comprehensive Master Plan and this report assume (emphasis added by
the author) that potable water will be available as needed for the
27
proposed development of the Meadows.'"1''
It is not enough to assume that the supply of water for future
inhabitants will be met. Rather, EPA, as well as other related federal
and state agencies, must insure that an adequate water supply exists
before permitting new constructions for inhabitants. Unless such safe-
guards are assured, chaos will prevail upon completion of construction.
-------
- 157 -
Solid waste disposal:
According to the mandate passed by the State Legislature, the HMDC
was charged with providing a method of disposal of the amount of garbage
entering the district at that time. In a subsequent survey, it was
found that 26,000 tons of garbage were entering the district weekly.
Since then, the amount has increased to 42,000 tons weekly, or a
violation by 12,000 tons of the amount mandated by the Commission.
This additional amount accepted each week has contributed to the rapid
depletion of landfill sites. EPA has calculated that the remaining
78
life of existing landfills is about five years, from March, 1972.
During the two years after the publication of the first preliminary
plan, the HMDC attempted to formalize plans for the world's largest
incinerator within the Meadows. It was on these plans that EPA proposed
their suggested revisions. However, since the EPA comments, the HMDC
has almost totally dropped plans for the incinerator. In their final
plan, there was no mention of an incinerator or any other form of
disposal. In private discussions with a YAB member on November 29, 1972,
Chet Mattson, one of the authors of the Master Plan as well as chief
environmentalist for the HMDC, noted that the HMDC had decided against
the incinerator.29 Since that time, the HMDC has been cooperating
with the Committee for Resource Recovery, an ad hoc committee of 334
groups, that has been advocating resource recovery as a viable means
of disposal for the region. Since January, 1973, the technical advisory
group ±>f-the coalition, comprised of members of the paper, glass, metal,
and plastics industries, have been meeting with the HMDC to begin to
design the mechanics of operation for resource recovery.
-------
158 -
Recently, too, a Manhattan firm that markets pollution control
devices has purchased land from the HMDC to build a $15 million
recycling center that would convert waste to fuel. Those non-combustible
materials such as metal or glass would be sold back to plants for reuse.
Combustible products such as paper would be used to make low-sulfur fuel.30
EPA must insure that the best method of disposal, in line with land
use considerations, be undertaken in the Meadowlands. No additional
sites must be allowed for landfill operations, since much of the land
presently being considered for such operations are of viable marsh, and
could provide a social amenity to the region.
Instead, EPA should provide the HMDC with both technical and
financial assistance towards the development of a resource recovery
system. Without such support from the Region II office, attempts by
the Committee for Resource Recovery and the HMDC will not be totally
successful.
EPA should work with other agencies towards the enforcement of
laws governing landfills and any other laws governing this particular
landfill. EPA should recommend to the HMDC that they only accept the
mandated amount of garbage, in order to extend the life of landfills.
Such a measure would require affected communities to regulate the
amount of garbage generated in their respective communities, and may
provoke the reuse of products to reduce volume.
EPA should also insure that the regulations governing sanitary
landfills are respected within the Meadowlands district. Unfortunately,
very few of the landfills in the Meadows are covered after the day's
operations. Furthermore, open burning on dumping areas must be controlled
by EPA working through agencies which have such enforcement powers.
-------
- 159
Leachates entering water tables and water bodies must also be
reduced. Presently, such conditions exist within the Meadowlands,
disrupting once viable eco-systems.
Open space:
The Hackensack Meadowlands represents one of the few large tracts
of open space remaining in the region. Surrounded by the cities of
New York, Newark, Paterson, Jersey City, and Elizabeth, the Meadows is
situated in the midst of an urban ring.
Within the region mentioned above, there exists a deficit in lands
reserved for recreational purposes. With the great density of residents
at present, parks canno^ possibly accommodate as many as those who wish
to utilize them. According to the National Park and Recreation Association,
there should be a minimum of 20 acres of parklands for every 1000 persons,
with a minimum of 250 acres for regional parks. Currently, there are
only half as many facilities as needed. It is, therefore, important
that as much of the Meadows be reserved for public use as recreational
areas as possible.
Furthermore, it is imperative that those areas labelled by the DEP
as high- or moderate-value marsh be preserved and/or restored to their
former states. In an assessment of the Master Plan, the DEP called for
the preservation of all those areas with potentially viable eco-systems.
The DEP, using infrared scale photos, prepared overlays of the entire
Meadowlands district. Based on these infrared pictures, DEP was then
able to suggest those areas still viable for fauna and flora.
The interpretations by the DEP and the HMDC differed concerning
lands still ecologically viable. The DEP, using its infrared photos,
-------
- 160 -
concluded that 3600.6 acres were of high value wetlands, 1403.2 acres
were of moderate value, and 1873.1 acres of the district's 6877 acres
of wetlands were of low value.
HMDC, using task forces on the ground, concluded that a total of
only 3160 acres of wetlands were worth preserving. Furthermore, some
of the areas zoned by the HMDC for wetlands preservation are only of
low value, according to the DEP. On the other hand, the HMDC has per-
mitted development of varying intensities on areas DEP has assessed as
viable marsh. Two large tracts east of the Hackensack River, including
part of an area along Mill Creek, labelled as viable marsh, has been
zoned for island residential housing as well as light industrial use.
Furthermore, the HMDC, disregarding the DEP's recommendation,
rejected the State's Wetlands Order, and instead, devised their own.
Unfortunately, those adopted by the HMDC are not as rigid as that of
the State and hence, does not provide for maximum land use control.
The State's Wetland Order, effective in areas where riparian rights
do not exist, prohibits the dumping of solid and liquid waste;
establishes stringent review criteria; and serves to prohibit all but
34
environmental compatible land use patterns within the Wetlands,
The HMDC Order, on the other hand, imposes no such burden of proff
on the developers. Furthermore, it allows for the discharge of both
solid and liquid waste, provided it is in conformance with the HMDC's
standards.35
It is most evident that the HMDC will not be able to preserve the
most valuable pieces of marsh from further human infringement if it
persists in following the course it has outlined. The HMDC has not
-------
- 161
committed itself to preservation of the best pieces of marsh area
remaining. Furthermore, even those areas of high quality may eventually
be destroyed if subjected to the HMDC's own Wetlands Order, a very
watered-down version of the State's Order.
EPA should encourage the HMDC to adopt both the DEP's Wetland
map as well as Wetland Order for maximum land use regulation. Unless
more of the high quality and moderate marsh areas are saved, the
Meadows may not be able to provide the recreational as well as educa-
tional facilities it should otherwise be able to.
The EPA, using its influence as well as financial levies, should
encourage the HMDC to postpone the granting of construction permits in
areas deemed by the DEP to be of viable marsh until certain environ
crlterias are satisfied. Specifically, air quality must be made to
conform with federal standards; water quality must meet minimum require-
ments for current needs before allowing an influx of new residents; and
solid waste systems must be devised to handle to mandated waste as well
as to minimize impact upon the area. Until that time, EPA should
encourage the HMDC to allow only construction in low quality marsh
areas (as judged by the DEP) of facilities that would provide amenities
to the area, e.g., resource recovery system, wastewater treatment
plant, etc.
* * *
Open space such as Gateway National Recreation Area, coastal reaches,
marshes and estuaries are threatened by the water pollution from the
inadequately treated wastes of the region's urban centers. However, at
the same time, they are threatened by additional causes of water pollu-
tion that are particularly crucial to open space: that of pollution
-------
162 -
by agricultural uses of the land which are often in close proximity to
natural water storage areas and recreation areas.
Still another problem crucial to that of pure water supply is the
uncontrolled growth patterns so visible in many of the urban fringe
areas of our region. Long Island will be focused upon as an excellent
example of an area where urbanization is proceeding ahead of water
resource planning.
-------
- 163 -
FOOTNOTES
Section III Open Land and Water Areas, Development Patterns and
Environmental Quality
5. Case Study: Impacts of Land Use on the Wetlands Eco-system
1. Richard H. Wagner, "The World Ocean: Ultimate Sump", Environment
and Man, W.W. Norton and Co. Inc., 1970, pp. 153-156.
2. "Governor Cahill signs Wetlands Act into law on November 5",
N.J. Environmental Times, Vol. 3, No. 4, Nov., 1970, p. 1.
3. Ibid., p. 5.
4. From an interview with Mr. Barker, Director of the Bureau of Marine
Lands Management, N.J. DEP, Jan. 1973.
5. From a letter to former N.J. Assemblyman from Dr. Eleanor J. Lewis,
Executive Director, N.J. PIRG, Re: Wetlands B111-A505, Dec. 29, 1972.
6. Interview with Mr. Harold Barker, Jan. 1973.
7. Dr. Eleanor Lewis, "The Destruction of the Wetlands with the Consent
of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection", N.J. PIRG,
Jan. 1, 1973, p. 6.
8. FMDC Commission, Hackensack Meadowlands Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Oct., 1970.
9. Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act, 1969,
approved by N.J. State Legislature.
10. Ibid., p. 2.
11. HMDC Commission, Hackensack Meadowlands Master Plan, Adopted
November 8, 1972.
12. New Jersey State Implementation Plan..., January, 1972.
13. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, "An Environmental
Assessment of the Master Plan and Proposed Zoning Ordinance for
the Hackensack Meadowlands District", Oct., 1972, p. 17.
14. EPA, Region II, "Report-Refuse Disposal-Hackensack Meadowlands",
March, 1972, p. 1.
-------
- 164 -
15. Dr. John McCormick and Associates, Draft Impact Assessment: New
Jersey Sports Complex, July, 1972, p. 89.
16. Environmental Design Studio, Livingston College, Hackensack
Meadowlands: Preliminary Findings, May, 1972, p. ~S~.
17. HMDC Comprehensive Land Use Plan, op. cit., p. 49.
18. Ibid.
19. N.J. DEP, op. cit., p. 19.
20. Ibid., p. 20.
21. John J. Kassner and consultants, Water Quality in the Hackensack
Meadowlands, p. 81, 1971.
22. Mattson, Chester, Poter, George, and Saks, Margaret Water Quality
In a Disordered Ecosystem, 1971, P. 24.
23. Ibid.
24. Kassner, op. cit., p. 65.
25. Kassner, op. cit., p. 92.
26. Sports Complex, op. cit., p. 67.
27. Kassner, op. cit., p. 87.
28. EPA, op. cit., p. 15.
29. Ibid.
30. Bergen Record, January 28, 1973, p. 1
31. National Park and Recreation Association, Open Space Standards, 1969
32. DEP, op_. cit.. Table 1
33. HMDC Master Plan, op_. cit.
34. New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970
35. HMDC Wetlands Order, November 8, 1972
-------
- 165 -
7. Water Pollution From Rural and Urbanizing Land
According to the 1968 report of the President's Water Resources
Council, "In areas undergoing rapid urbanization, sediment derived from
construction of subdivisions and highways may be as much as 80 tons per
acre before the land is restabilized, or as high as 57,000 tons per
1000 increase in population. In the Potomic River Basin, watersheds
that are undergoing urban growth discharge 10 to 50 times as much sediment
as similar watersheds in rural areas."
The pollution from a highway does not stop once the broken ground
is stabilized; approximately 20% of the 2.2 million miles of rural
roads and highways need conservation measures for sediment control be-
yond those for normal maintenance. The unprotected roadsides contribute
an average of 56 million tons of sediment annually to the nation's
streams, reservoirs and harbors.
A land use-caused water pollution problem that was identified in
the Tocks Island Reservoir proposal is that of poultry farming. Chicken
farms of New York are allowing runoff to flow into the Delaware River
watershed. It has been estimated that this runoff would be sufficient
2
to pollute the proposed reservoir. The excess nitrogen introduced
would very likely accelerate the eutrophication of the reservoir which
would provide conditions unacceptable for a lake that is proposed to
support at least 4 million visitors annually3 and was once intended to
4
serve 10 million visitors per year.
A paper presented at the 1970 Cornell University Conference on
Agriculture Waste Management5 stated that manure is produced by chickens
-------
- 166
and turkeys at a rate of over a ton per 400 chickens raised annually.
Manure returns to the soil at a rate of over 10 tons per acre annually.
This results in a soil pollution problem consisting of excess soluable
salts, chemical imbalance of potassium and excess NG^. The nitrates
are leached out of the soil causing a water pollution problem in the
drainage stream.
Following the pollution downstream, substantial water pollution
problems are often found in the reservoir, marsh or estuary that becomes
the destined depository for the fouled water. This is exactly the effect
many fear will be created in the locks Island Reservoir if it is con-
structed without concurrent strict regulation of poultry farm wastes.
This is a problem that should deeply concern EPA of both Regions II
and III, and EPA has a responsibility to advise all participants in the
debate in order to insure maximal protection of the environment. The
potential pollution of a reservoir should be a most grave and serious
concern of EPA. The effects of the unregulated use of water by poulty
farmers can be easily observed in the case of Long Island's Great South
Bay.
Great South Bay is 24 miles long and up to 3 miles wide with an
average depth of 4 feet. The greatest pollution of the lagoon comes
from the untreated runoff from the duck farms in the bay's watershed.
The duck industry produces 3300 pounds of nitrogen, 5600 Ibs of phosphorus,
and 55,600 pounds of suspended solids in a total effluent of 133 million
gallons per day.
-------
- 167
The solid wastes from the ducks give the water a gray turbidity
and accumulation of the solids greatly reduces the dissolved oxygen
in areas of high concentration of the waste. The anaerobic conditions
encourage sulfide bacteria to produce hydrogen sulfide which bubbles
to the surface buoying rafts of solid wastes which float in the bay.
The environmental conditions of the bay provide the ecological require-
ments of the algae Nannochloris which builds up on the gills of the
oysters once found in great abundance in the bay. Due to this inter-
ference with respiration and feeding, the oysters die of either
starvation or suffocation. As a direct effect of eutrophication,
oyster production of the bay declined from 600,000 in 1950 to zero in
many of the years since 1960.
The clam industry has been affected by another result of the duck
Q
wastes. Salmonella is a coliform bacteria that is introduced into the
bay via duck waste and untreated municipal sewerage. Bacterial poisoning
of the shellfish industry is currently a major economic problem, as was
evidenced by the poisoning of several people after dinners of eastern
shellfish in the summer of 1972.
Land uses such as duck farming must be regulated. EPA can act
according to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Sec. 10(a) and
require the duck farming industry to abate its discharges. It is the
recommendation of this report that the EPA try to work with the farmers
as they have with other industry to encourage them to voluntarily
abate their effluents. The duck farmers should be required to separate
the solid wastes and dry them for fertilizer. The supernatant should
then be treated as any municipal waste before it is released to the bay or
recycled.
-------
168 -
Other water pollution problems that must be dealt with will be
those caused by the purchase of farmland by speculators for
residential and industrial development. Depletion of the water supply
and salt water intrusion in the coastal areas of the region can be
expected as haphazard and extremely rapid growth accelerate.
This can be observed in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island.
Although Nassau and Suffolk Counties would both have enough water for
their immediate needs, it is estimated that if current practices continue,
Nassau County alone will experience a deficit of 92,000,000 gallons per
9
day in the year 1990. Suffolk County would have adequate supplies until
perhaps ten years after that, but it, too, would soon run into extreme
shortages.
The cause of this potential crisis can be traced to the spread of
population out from New York City and the meager and ineffective measures
that Long Island communities took to insure that growth occurred in a
rational manner that respected the capabilities of the land. Around
the time of World War II, a minor exodus began to the then farmlands of
Nassau and Suffolk and still continues. The local communities of Long
Island were unable to keep pace with their sewage problems as the influx
of people continued, and soon the ground water supplies received large
amounts of waste from septic tanks, polluting the ground water supply.
The growth continued.
By 1970, Nassau County held 1.4 million people, and Suffolk County
1.1 million (after a growth of 69% since I960.'). It was not until 1970
that a Nassau-Suffolk Regional Plan was even formulated, to try to
channel development into rational patterns.
-------
- 169 -
Long Island was endowed with a. tremendous quantity of water stored
in its underground reservoir, which the U.S. Geological Survey estimated
at 60 trillion gallons, enough to cover the island to a depth of 200 feet.11
However, as the demands that the increasing population makes upon the
reservoir grow larger, salt water intrusion accelerates. In addition,
only 54% of Nassau's population was under sewer service in 1970, while
12
in Suffolk a scant 7% received such service. This lack of sewer
service led to the leaching of cesspool effluent causing additional
contamination and deterioration of the ground water supply.
Nitrate content has also plagued the water supply of Nassau and
Suffolk exceeding the U.S. Public Health Service limit of 10 mg/1
(milligrams per liter) in some areas of Long Island. ^ This problem,
among others, prompted Suffolk County to place a total ban on the sale
of detergents within the county.
EPA is currently sponsoring a study of ground-water recharge
technology in Wantagh on Long Island in an attempt to combat the salt
water intrusion that has been occuring and to help replenish the ground-
water supply. The study is to include the future construction of a 5
million gallon per day demonstration plant in Wantagh.
In the Environmental Impact Statement on Waste Water Facilities
Construction Grants in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, EPA noted in reference
to further population increases that:
These density increases must be limited to those areas
that can best support the additional strain on land and
water resources while maintaining a balance between the
natural systems...15
-------
170 -
This is both a timely and relevant statement for EPA to make
concerning rational land lose policy for Long Island, however, it must
be recognized that under the present political and legislative climate
the governments of Nassau and Suffolk may have no power to do this.
Nassau and Suffolk Counties each contain innumerable village and
town governments whose prime allegiances rest in furthering what they
consider to be their own self-interests. The result is, of course,
that all residents of Long Island suffer from the rivalry in one way
or another.
The same forces that have rendered the Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board virtually helpless in its efforts to guide Long Island
towards sensible growth patterns have also prevented the institution
of an agency to manage the water resources of the entire region. As
others have pointed out, ground water reservoirs do not recognize
political boundaries and any hydrological problems that one area causes
by a higher rate of development can affect the total resource.
There is currently no regional water resources planning board on
Long Island despite the obvious need for one. Existing mechanism under
state law enable one to be created (Article V, Part V New York State
Conservation Law) - Not only would such a board combine broad representation
with the advisory powers of agencies such as the Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board, it would be largely state-funded and aid in the develop-
ment of both long-range and short-range plans concerning public water
supply. However, these plans could and should also deal with flood
prevention and control, water quality management, water-based recreation,
fish and wildlife enhancement and related land use planning.
-------
171 -
EPA's current activities aimed at supplementing Long Island's water
supply are most valuable and such experiments as are being carried
out in Wantagh, L.I., should continue. However, no amount of experi-
mentation with water recharge could possibly keep up with a continued
uncontrolled growth pattern such as Long Island has exhibited. It is
most necessary for EPA to attack the roots of the problem rather than
merely deal with the effects after the damage has been done. EPA must
use all of its leverage to:
1) Urge Nassau and Suffolk Counties, to complete their sewering
program.
2) Assist in any way possible in the creation of a Long Island
Water Resources Planning Board.
3) Demonstrate the folly of uncontrolled growth in the area of
limited and fragile natural resources.
4) Continue support for water recharge technology programs (such
as the Wantagh, L.I., study).
A A *
Even as poor land use planning can lead to inadequate water supply,
it can also lead to the completely opposite problem—that of flooding.
Americans have literally "paved the way to disaster" by developing
flood plains and wetlands throughout the country. The federal government
has allowed and encouraged development along hundreds of rivers by
"protecting" the communities from flooding through the construction of
dams and levees designed to retain the fifty or one hundred year flood.
The subsequent development alters the flood plain, and in doing so
increases not only the consequential cost of a flood if it occurs but
also increases the very probability of the occurence of the flood.
-------
172 -
FOOTNOTES
Section III - Open Land and Water Areas, Development Patterns and
Environmental Quality
6. Water Pollution From Rural and Urbanizing Land
1. U.S. Water Resources Council, The Nation's Water Resources (Washington, D.C:
U.S. Water Resources Council, 1968), p. 5—5-3'.
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Proposal for Tocks Island Reservoir , 1971.
3. Star-Ledger (Newark), September 14, 1972, p. 1.
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Proposal for...
5. Leslie H. Hileman, "Pollution Factors Associated with Excess Poultry
Litter Application in Arkansas," in Relationship of Agriculture to Soil
and Water Pollution (Rochester: January, 1970), p. 41T
6. R.H. Wagner, Environment-and Man (W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1971), p. 158.
7. Ibid., p. 159.
8. Ibid., p. 159-60.
9. "Nassau County Comprehensive Plan," Newsday (Garden City, N.Y.), December
14, 1971.
10. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive
Development Plan: Summary (Hauppauge, N.Y: Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning
Board, 1970)
11. New York State Office of Planning Coordination, Long Island Water
Resources (Albany: New York State Office of Planning Coordination, January,
1970), p. 1.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,"Environmental Impact Statement
on Waste Water Treatment Facilities Construction Grants for Nassau and
Suffolk Counties, N.Y.," Final Statement-July, 1972-Region II, pp. 34-35.
13. Ibid.
14. Suffolk County, N.Y. Legislature-Local Law No. 21-1970.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Environmental Impact...Waste Water,"
p. 123.
-------
173 -
8. Floodplains and Development Policy
The New Jersey State Legislature considered floodplain legislation
after each flood disaster much the same way as Congress debates control
of fire arms after each attempt to assassinate a public figure. Fortunately,
New Jersey has finally passed a floodplain act; however, lack of regulations
protecting floodplains in many states and municipalities indicates that
most governmental bodies have not grown beyond the state of reacting to
crises. That is, they have not accepted the responsibility of planning and
implementing programs designed to prevent or minimize the costs of
disasters that are inevitable without such planning.
Floodplains act as natural sponges to absorb rainfall, preventing
the flash flooding that occurs when great amounts of water fall on non-
porous surfaces such as rooftops, roads and soil that has been compacted
by home and highway construction. Floodplains also decrease velocity
of streams by increasing the surface area over which the stream is flowing.
However, when floodplains are diked off, the velocity of the stream is
increased. The average rooftop of 1200 square feet sheds 750 gallons of
water in a one inch rainstorm. The water from the rooftops flows through
storm sewers and culverts into the stream, bypassing the natural system
(the floodplain) that would have restrained the waters.
For the purpose of assisting those who wish to regulate the amount
and type of development upon floodplains, the Water Resources Council
has divided up the floodplain into four zones: the regulatory floodway,
the regulatory floodway fringe, the regulatory floodway limit, and the
standard project flood.1 No development should take place upon the
regulatory floodway as extreme environmental hazards can result from
this practice. In addition, any construction that took place within the
-------
174
regulatory floodway would also certainly be destroyed ultimately. Some
types of development may take place outside of the floodway (particularly
in the last two categories), however great care should be taken in
choosing appropriate uses for this land. For example, recreation is an
eminently suitable use for a floodplain as many recreational activities
such as golf, hiking, picknicking, camping, etc., do not require that
the ground be paved with asphalt or concrete. Recreation areas can not
only be quickly evacuated, when necessary, in the time of bad storms,
they can also be left basically in their natural state, which aids in
flood control. As long as the runoff waters are strictly controlled,
the floodplains can also be used for agriculture, as much of the floodplain
land is extremely fertile.
It makes a great deal of sense to restrict the use of floodplains
both economically and environmentally. However, especially in regions
such as Region II where open space is in such short supply, this is
rarely done in practice. Instead, the Army Corps of Engineers builds
dams so that development may occur "safely." Often this development
has not proved to be safe. Protecting one town with a dike merely
intensifies the effect of a flood downstream. It has been thought that if
the levees had not broken in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania as an aftermath
of Hurricane Agnes, the damage in Harrisburg would have been much greater.
Unfortunately, however, this does not deter the public from wanting
to live near the newly "protected" land after a dam is constructed.
Generally beautiful areas fronting the rivers bring in high prices for
developers. Thus in the face of inadequate governmental action, as the
floodplains continue to be developed more and more flood damage can be expected
-------
- 175 -
In many places in Region II, notably in Northern New Jersey, there
has been a pronounced decrease in the amount of rain necessary to bring
on flooding as compared with a very few years ago. The New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection estimates that in the Passaic
River Basin, for example, it now takes half as much rain to cause minor
flooding as it did before World War II. In Bound Brook, New Jersey,
which was hit particularly hard by Hurricane Gloria in 1971, it has been
estimated that it now takes three inches of rain in a twenty-four hour
period to cause minor flooding, whereas it used to take at least five
inches.
However, floodplains should be left free from development not only
for the prevention of flooding and flood damage, but also for the pre-
vention of water pollution. The millions of dollars of debris that
jammed the rivers, reservoirs and harbors following the spring floods
were only one result of the flood. In addition, thousands of gallons
of oil were spilled into the rivers of New York and Pennsylvania as
refineries and storage tanks built upon the floodplain were damaged.
There is Federal legislation that could conceivably be used to help
protect both floodplains and nearby water bodies from the dangers of
water pollution due to storage of toxic materials upon the floodplain.
For example, Section 11(e) of the Water Pollution Control Act states that:
.. .when the President determines there is an imminent
and substantial threat to the public health or welfare
of the United States, including but not limited to fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and public and private property,
shorelines, and beaches within the United States, be-
cause of an actual or threatened discharge of oil into
or upon the navigable waters of the United States from
an onshore or offshore facility, the President may
require the United States attorney of the district in
which the threat occurs to secure such relief as may be
necessary...3
-------
- 176 -
Although clearly, this section was not originally meant to refer
to floodplains, it is possible that until states and municipalities begin
to take more seriously the protection of floodplains, this (as well as
Section 12(a) which refers to toxic materials other than oil) can be
used to prevent some of the water pollution that occurs as a result of
flooding.
There are a number of ways in which EPA could become involved
more actively in the protection of floodplains. First, EPA could require
that communities seeking EPA funding for the construction of sewerage
treatment facilities implement adequate floodplain protection policies.
Among the rationales EPA could use to require this floodplain protection
would be Section 8Cb)(l) of the Water Pollution Control Act.
No grant shall be made for any project pursuant to this
section unless such project shall have been approved by
the appropriate State water pollution control agency...
and by the Secretary and unless such project is includ-
ed in a comprehensive program...4
EPA should also use its authority to review impact statements
written on any development proposed for floodplains areas that will use
federal money. This would mean any federal funding used to relocate
and rebuild upon the floodplain after flooding has devastated an area.
If this rebuilding were to occur upon the floodplain, it would virtually
insure a continuing cycle of federally-subsidized disasters. Similarly,
EPA should pay close intention to impact statements written by the Army
Corps of Engineers for construction of dikes and dams in floodplain
areas designed to "prevent flooding." Impact statements written by
the Corps should account not only for the environmental impact of quarrying
-------
- 177
for construction materials and the siltation caused by the construction,
but also for the damage that can be caused to floodplain and the com-
munities around it because of the presence of the dikes. These dikes
tend to actually spur development upon the floodplain because they supply
an illusionary sense of security. Regardless of whether dikes eventually
break or not, the increased development alters the probability of flooding
that the Corps uses in planning the project, making flooding far more
likely.
Still another mechanism that EPA could use to help to protect
flood-plains is that of the Johnson Administration Executive Order 11296.
This order sought to prevent the uneconomic use and development of flood-
plains and to lessen the risk of flood loss. Although the order dis-
cussed limiting construction of Federal facilities upon floodplains, the
rationale behind this order was more economically and hazard-motivated
than concerned with environmental damage. Thus, existing federally
owned facilities upon the floodplain were ordered to be floodproofed
rather than removed, the aim apparently being more to protect the
building than to prevent the flood. However, EPA could use this order
for the widespread dissemination of information concerning floodplain
development and its dangers. Section 3 of the order, in particular,
specifies that:
...any other executive agency which may have
information and data relating to floods shall
cooperate with the Secretary of the Army in
providing such information and in developing
procedures to process information requests...5
-------
- 178
Section 1 (1) of the order states that:
All executive agencies directly responsible for the
construction of Federal buildings, structures, roads, or
other facilities shall evaluate flood hazards when planning
the location of new facilities and, as far as practicable,
shall preclude the uneconomic, hazardous, or unnecessary use
of flood plains in connection with such facilities 6
The Environmental Protection Agency should insure, through its
review of Environmental Impact Statements, that all proposed construction
within the floodplains is one; necessary and two; non-hazardous to both
the occupants of the proposed facility and the eco-system in which it is
to be located.
It is the recommendation of the Youth Advisory Board that the EPA
request the President to issue a superceding Executive Order that will
also require ecologic considerations in every instance that economic
considerations are required by Executive Order 11296.
In general, floodplain regulation is still another area in which
EPA has no specific mandate. Nevertheless, it is an area with which
EPA must be concerned. Inadequate floodplain protection in Region II
has led to environmental problems that EPA has legislative authority to
deal with. Thus, it is both reasonable and necessary that EPA use all
possible means at hand to become involved with the causes of these
problems as well as the results.
Historically, floodplains have been used extensively for agriculture
because of the fertile alluvial soil provided by previous floods. In a
region that is rapidly urbanizing protection of all agricultural lands
is and will continue to be a crucial environmental problem. This is the
problem discussed in the next chapter of this report.
-------
- 179 -
FOOTNOTES
Section III - Open Land and Water Areas, Development Patterns and
Envi ronmental Quali ty
7. Floodplains and Development Policy
1. U.S. Water Resources Council, Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to
Reduce Flood Losses, Vol. I (Washington, D.C: U.S. Water Resources
Council, 1969), p. 46.
2. "Flood Perils Rise as Land Is Covered By Developers," New York Times,
October 14, 1972.
3. As amended by the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-224).
4. Ibid.
5. Johnson Executive Order No. 11296, "Evaluation of Flood Hazard in
Locating Federally Owned or Financed Buildings, Roads, and Other Fac-
ilities, and in Disposing of Federal Lands and Properties," Effective
January 1, 1967.
6. Ibid.
-------
180 -
9- Agricultural Lands and Development Pressures
There are any number of reasons why the preservation of agricultural
lands and the farming industry are important to the New York-New Jersey
Region. The agricultural industry is still far ranging in economic
impact and scope, agricultural production being only one phase of a
total "agribusiness" conglomerate. Farm lands represent some of the
last major undeveloped pieces of land in certain parts of Long Island
and New Jersey--land that is vitally needed for open space, air and water
management purposes. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult
for farmers to remain in business as property taxes spiral and land is
continually sought for residential housing development.
Suffolk County on Long Island provides an excellent example of
this phenomenon. The county covering the eastern two-thirds of Long
Island, according to the 1969 U.S. Agricultural Census, is the richest
agricultural county in New York State. Total gross sales in 1971 were
worth over $71,000,000 and in 1969 there were 304 farms earning gross
incomes of over $40,000 yearly. Suffolk County nurseries, sod and
flower farms, potato farms and duck farms are all first in quantity
produced in New York State.
However, Suffolk County is also one of the fastest growing counties
in the United States, and the spread of urbanization even out to the far
reaches of Long Island is taking its toll on agriculture. From the
present population of 1,127,030, it is expected that there will be 1,746,000
residents by 1985—a tremendous increase. This wave of population moving
outward from New York City will need homes, recreational facilities, com-
-------
- 181 -
mercial facilities, etc., and all of this will be provided in a haphazard
manner upon the land currently being farmed if new tax programs and
development policies are not instituted. This ultimately leads to a
sprawled development pattern that not only squanders the land but can
result in high air pollution from excessive automobile use, water
shortages (e.g., particularly on an island as is the case with Suffolk
County), excessive taxation, etc.
Real estate developers are already beginning to have their way.
Southold Town's Master Plan describes the situation. "The financial
benefit that attends the transmutation of potato farms in speculative real
estate have caused many Long Island farmers to put out a welcome mat to
the residential subdivider," The financial incentives that real estate
developers provide together with the declining potato prices, for example,
have caused 129 potato farms to go out of business in the three years
between 1968 and 1971.4
The small farmer can't make it anymore; but as land values escalate
will any farmer care to farm land he can sell for a much larger income?
The Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board calls for limited growth in
the eastern end of Suffolk County so as to preserve some of this valuabe
agricultural land and insure that it may continue to provide food and
recreation for the larger region. The Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive
Development Plan has suggested that a minimum of 30,000 acres of the
most productive farmland in the Towns of Riverhead, Southold and South-
hanpton should be publicly purchased and then leased back. However, the
Regional Board is strictly advisory in nature. Many towns enact zoning
-------
- 182 -
ordinances to carry on development in ways completely contrary to the
spirit of the plan.
For example, the plan calls for preserving farmland in the central
portion of Southold that is currently zoned for half-acre lots. Yet,
the Southold Town Supervisor has estimated that the town has already
approved enough half-acre lots to hold 5,000 new residents. The town's
current zoning ordinance, meanwhile, which was adopted in January of
1972, has a residential-agricultural zoning which covers half of the
town and allows developers to build on one acre lots without public
water and sewers or to build on half-acre lots when these facilities
are provided. This promises a severe potential water shortage when a
water survey made back in 1967 concluded that: "The water resources
of Southold are limited to an amount which does not greatly exceed
present use." It also sets up a zoning structure virtually guaranteed
tp drive farmers off their farms.
New Jersey is facing a situation similar to that of Long Island,
but perhaps on a larger scale. New Jersey lost 10,000 farms between
1957 and 1967 as the value of land for development increased, and
communities pushed larger tax bases. An acre of farm land cannot
produce the taxes of an acre of industrial or residential property
without special tax programs and government assistance. Largely because
of these types of pressures, the New Jersey State Department of Agricul-
ture's farm statistics bureau estimates that the state will lose another
100 farms this year. Loss of farm land has been currently running close
to 120 acres per day.
-------
- 183 -
Only half of the farm land that existed in the late 1950's still
remains in farming. In 1968 the average value of an acre of farm land
was $832. In 1971 that figure rose to $1094. The New Jersey State
Labor Department supplies figures that indicate only 140,000 acres of
farm land will remain at the end of the century in the state. This
acreage is about 1/8 the present amount.
It should also be recognised, however, that although agriculture
is desirable aesthetically as open space as well as necessary for food
production, the large scale agri-businesses of southern New Jersey often
present serious environmental problems as a result of their dependence
and heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Fertilizer runoff
pollutes the waters with excess nutrients while pesticides often kill
more than "pests", birds, fish, and mammals. Yet they are still deemed
as necessary under mass monoculture conditions, contaminating not only
the air and water, but accumulating in the produce we consume. The New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection wages more battles with the
big time farmers and chemical manufacturers than any other segment of the
New Jersey population.
The point of view of most farmers is essentially that it is the non-
farm people who need the open space the most. In order to make it possible
for farmers to stay in New Jersey and maintain taxpaying open space,
public expenditure as well as additional programs and policies will be
necessary. If necessary, farmers can sell out and relocate to another
state where land values are lower. However, once their land is sold and
o
developed, it is essentially lost to farming and open space forever.
When one considers that farmers own a fifth of the total land area of
-------
- 184 -
New Jersey, making up one third of the remaining open space, lack of
public action could indeed be disastrous.
What type of public policies and tax reforms can be instituted to
aid in the preservation of agricultural land in its current use, and
thus prevent the environmental degradation associated with rapid, un-
planned development and too little open space?
The staff of EPA should be aware of some of the different methods
that have been suggested. One obvious solution would be the governmental
purchase of these farmlands. The purchased land would then be leased
back to the farmers who would continue to operate the farm. This type
of program costs a great deal of money which most governmental units do
not have. Suffolk County Executive John V.N. Klein had pledged after
he took office last January that he would institute such a program.
However, with land currently selling in Eastern Suffolk County for
more than $1,000 an acre, the idea had to be abandoned as too costly.
A variation of that approach is for government to make a less than fee
purchase of the land, i.e., purchase a scenic easement whereby a farm
owner voluntarily signs an agreement to keep his land in agriculture
for a fixed number of years in exchange for lower property tax rates.
Again, there are problems with this method in that 1) it is costly
to purchase even scenic or conservation easements and 2) when the
terms of the easement expire, the farmer is free to sell his land at a
handsome profit--one which has been government subsidized during the period
of the easement.
Another approach emphasizes the pre-emption of some rule priorities
by a state agency when agriculture is threatened by a local zoning
ordinance. One proposal for New Jersey emphasized the creation of an
-------
- 185 -
Agricultural Resources Commission in the State Dept., of Agriculture
which would 1) prepare an over-all statewide plan for the preservation
of agriculture in New Jersey, 2) serve as advisor to such entities as
the CEQ and the Land and Water Resources Authority, 3) work with
farmers and local planning officials to create Agricultural Priority
Districts, 4) have the authority to review proposed local ordinances
that would affect these districts, 5) act as review board when an agency
with the power of eminent domain threatens to take land in a Priority
District, and 6) help farmers to organize agricultural land cooperatives
which would enable the preservation of agricultural land combined with
profit sharing as that land was developed that was least suitable for
farming. ^
Still a third group of solutions focus on changing the U. S.
Internal Revenue Service laws and regulations so as to make them more
amenable to the preservation of agriculture. Suffolk County Executive
Klein has proposed a series of changes along that line. One would be
an amendment of Federal inheritance and gift-tax laws so as to allow
the deferment of tax liability on farmlands as long as the land continues
to be used for that purpose. He calls for an indefinite deferral of
liability; however, interest runs concurrently on the ultimate tax
liability--both of which must be paid as soon as the land is no longer
farmed. Land upon which scenic easements are purchased would also be
given a lower assessed valuation during the existence of the term of
the easement; however, interest on the difference between the tax is
reduced and the amount which would have been due without the easement is
ultimately paid to the government when agricultural users are terminated.
***
-------
- 186 -
A current land use practice that exerts a most critical pressure on
open space land is a prevalent procedure by which solid waste is disposed
of: sanitary landfill. As mentioned previously, air pollution caused
by currently active incinerators, and the most recent legislation
restricting ocean dumping will help to accelerate the search for
additional land which can be used as landfill. Unfortunately, the type
of land required is often the same land that is being sought by different
city, state, or private agencies for a recreation area. The scope of
the solid waste problem in Region II, and its implications for land use
and environmental quality will be discussed next.
-------
- 187
FOOTNOTES
Section III - Open Land and Water Areas, Development Patterns and
Environmental Quality
8. Agricultural Land and Development Pressures
1. Suffolk County Cooperative Extension Office - Agricultural Division,
"Comparative Importance of Suffolk County, New York Agriculture,"
(Riverhead, N.Y: Suffolk County Cooperative Extension Office, December
23, 1971). (Mimeographed.)
2. Ibid.
3. "Growth Outruns East End Plans," Newsday (Garden City, N.Y.), March 3,
1972, p. 17.
4. Suffolk County Cooperative Extension Office - Agricultural Division,
"Suffolk County Agricultural Outlook and Trends," (Riverhead, N.Y:
Suffolk County Cooperative Extension Office, December 23, 1971).
(Mimeographed.)
5. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive
Development Plan: Summary (Hauppauge, N.Y: Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board, 1970)
6. "Growth Outruns East...," Newsday.
7. New Jersey Commission on Open Space Policy, Report 'of tjae New Jersey
Commission on Open Space Policy. March, 1971, Appendix.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. "Protecting Farmlands," Long Island Commercial Review. September, 1972.
-------
- 188 -
1°- Solid Waste Disposal and Land Use
The dimensions of the solid waste disposal problem in Region II
continue to increase daily. The centralization of population in many
of the urban areas of the region, along with the increased emphasis
on over-packaged, no-return containers are only two of the
factors leading to the acute difficulties in waste disposal. Other
factors adding to the dilemma are the severe shortages of land to be
used as landfill, the air pollution levels of many parts of the region,
and the lack of regional cooperation and coordination in waste disposal.
The volumes of waste in New York City, for example, are increasing
with each year. Since I960, the city's population has risen by only 1.5%
while the flow of refuse has increased by 42% J The city is fast running
out of land which can be used for sanitary landfill, and according to
current height regulations, all of New York City's landfill areas will
be exhausted by 1976. Extension of the landfills could delay this date
by ten or fifteen years at the most.^
The city is currently searching for any and all alternatives to
sanitary landfill, many of which are clearly unfeasible. For example,
Jerome Kretchmer, New York City's Environmental Protection Administrator,
was quoted in the New York Times as saying that "...the City would be
more than willing to railhaul the solid waste to areas such as strip mines,
quarries, and the like, but other communities either within or outside New
York State don't want New York City's garbage."3 Instead, he proposed
ocean dumping as an alternative, which was outlawed by the Supreme Court
as early as 1933.
One reason for the stepped up search for all possible waste disposal
-------
- 189 -
alternatives is that, most likely, the traditional alternative to land-
fill, incineration, will not be satisfactory for New York City in the
future. The New York City Environmental Protection Administration recently
cancelled a plan to construct a 6,000 ton per day incinerator because
both the capital cost ($200 million) and the air pollution (more than
3,000 tons of particulates per year even with the most modern abatement
equipment) were judged intolerable.^
Understandably, despite New York City's acute landfill shortage,
communities near New York City are growing increasingly reluctant to let
other cities use their precious landfill space. The Hackensack Meadowlands,
for example, 20,000 acres located in New Jersey's Hudson and Bergen Counties
has been relied upon as a dumping ground for over 100 municipalities in the
area, including New York City. However, plans are underway for massive
development of the Meadowlands. Included in these plans is the construction
of the world's largest incinerator, but it is conceivable that plans for it
could be cancelled for many of the same reasons that New York cancelled con-
struction of its new incinerator. According to EPA, the incinerator should
meet air quality standards. However, the 820 to 1,370 additional tons of
particulate matter that the incinerator would generate could not help but
add appreciably to the air pollution levels of already polluted Northern
New Jersey.
Solid waste disposal problems are evident in other portions of Region
II, as well. For example, according to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan-
ning Study of the Central New York Region, although the population density
of the area is much less than that of the eastern portions of the state,
poorly located landfill operations are not uncommon. Although Onondaga
-------
- 190 -
County had 26 landfills in 1970, 8 were located immediately adjacent to
residentially zoned areas, and 1995 projections call for 22 landfills to
be either within or closely adjacent to such residential areas.5 Such
juxtaposition of landfill with residential area is quite undesirable from
the standpoint of preserving neighborhood aesthetics, but in addition,
little attention was paid to the natural features of the land in selecting
sites for these landfills. For example, 10 of the 26 landfills in Onandaga
County are located on 100 year floodplains.6 In the future, some atten-
tion will undoubtedly be paid to the coordination of solid waste management
and land use planning, but whether new regional governmental structures
will be created to perform this function is uncertain.
In response to the severity of the problem, many areas of Region II
are experimenting with new approaches to solid waste disposal. For example,
New York City has contracted with the Monsanto Corporation for the construc-
tion of an experimental pyrolysis plant that can process 1,000 tons of
solid waste per day and will cost the city nothing for its construction.
The town of Orchard Park, N.Y., is currently experimenting with the Torrax
Solid Waste Disposal System utilizing high temperature incineration. Once
air pollution from such systems is under control, the molten residue from
the plant could be reduced to only 5% of the introduced refuse. In addi-
tion, the heat produced could be used for power production; many of the
toxic gases could be oxidized in the high temperature chamber; and some
land could be conserved which would otherwise be used for sanitary land-
fill. Other systems being investigated at the present time include
shredding, compacting, wet oxidation, and thermal decompostition.
However, it is increasingly necessary that priority be given by EPA
-------
- 191 -
to research and funding of systems and strategies aimed at l)Reducing the
amount of solid wastes that must be disposed of, and 2)Re-using waste
materials through reclamation and recycling, composting, etc. It is self-
evident that only a finite amount of natural resources are available for
human use. It makes both economic and environmental sense to focus
attention on recycling.
A number of areas within Region II are attempting to initiate large-
scale resource recovery programs. For example, the Central New York
Regional Planning Board has set resource recovery objectives for 1980
that include the recycling of 30% of all paper and paper products and 10%
of all ferrous metals. A three stage implementation schedule has been
set up to meet these objectives which hopes to be able to rely heavily
on voluntary citizen cooperation. Thus, a substantial public information
program would be carried out in conjunction with the plan. This type of
public information program should be aimed at changing consumer habits.
Citizens must be informed as to the environmental consequences of non-
returnable bottles and the purchase of products with excess packaging, and
taught to avoid these products.
At the same time, municipalities must take measures to provide
economic incentives for the manufacture of products that are easier to
recycle or dispose of. For example, the New York State Legislature has
given New York City permission to enact a recycling incentive tax on con-
tainers. The tax is a one to three cent levy at the wholesale level on
rigid and semi-rigid paper, glass, metal and plastic containers for all
non-food items sold at retail. Any container that contains a prescribed
percentage of recycled materials is allowed a one cent credit against the
-------
- 192 -
tax. Additional tax credit would be granted to wholesalers purchasing
products from manufacturers reusing old containers. Unfortunately, at
this time, the City Council has passed only that portion of the tax
applying to plastics. Subsequently, the plastics industry sued, and won
their case, charging that the tax was discriminatory.8
It is important to examine the Federal role in relation to solid
waste disposal, for, in some ways, Federal policy and programs have been
most deleterious to sensible solid waste disposal, and, in particular, to
resource recovery efforts. According to the Third Annual Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality:
Solid waste, unlike air and water pollution, remains
substantially a problem of local control and concern.
Federal initiatives in this area, primarily the
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 [P.L. 89-272] as am-
ended by the Resource Recovery Act of 1970/[P.L. 91-512]
are essentially limited to demonstration and planning
grants, technical aid and information guidelines...
Thus, the actual task of collecting and disposing of
municipal wastes remains a problem squarely faced for
the most part only by local government.9
This implies that the Federal Government really has very little to
do with solid waste disposal, other than to provide some funding and some
information. That is really not accurate, for Federal policy has a great
deal to do with the difficulty that is being encountered in establishing
economically viable recycling programs. The Third CEQ Report seeks to
minimize these difficulties by explaining that new approaches of EPA are
aimed at smoothing them out.
The emphasis of EPA's solid waste demonstration
grant program has shifted from hardware develop-
ment to improving markets and managerial and insti-
tutional practices using currently available tech-
nology. Resource recovery—or recycling—demonstra-
tion grants will be keyed to commercially viable
systems based on a realistic assessment of market
conditions.10
-------
193 -
If EPA is going to realistically assess market conditions, it
should first do a thorough evaluation of those Federal programs which
give preferential treatment to manufacturers who use virgin rather than
reclaimed materials. Administrator Ruckelshaus of EPA admitted to some
of these inequities in an interview in Catalyst:
There are a number of regulations that dis-
criminate unnecessarily against recycled pro-
ducts and which need to be studied in a new
perspective. Specifications that require
virgin materials need to be reexamined. So
do freight rates and other practices that place
undue economic burden on secondary materials...
However, our biggest obstacles are attitudinal.
In the past, the public did not see products manu-
factured from secondary materials as particularly
desirable items. Now, in contrast, consumers rec-
ognize increasingly the long-range benefits of re-
use and, I believe, will show their appreciation by
increasing their purchase of recycled products J'
Most consumers are certainly not, despite what Administrator
Ruckelshaus says, going to purchase recycled products that cost con-
siderably more than other products on the market. It is questionable
that at this time, the problem is more attitudinal than economic. A
brief review of some of the discriminatory elements within Federal
policy will help to illustrate this point.
1) A most significant cost factor in the recovery and use of re-
cycled materials is that of transportation cost. Railroad and
steamship transportation rates continue to discriminate against
recycled materials by as much .-as 50% as compared to virgin
materials. The Council on Environmental Quality, the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce have asked the
-------
- 194 -
Interstate Commerce Commission for a remedy to this, to no avail.
Yet, opportunities certainly exist for correcting this discrimina-
tion at a time when the railroad and maritime industries seek in-
creasing Federal subsidy.12
2) The General Services Administration has no requirements concerning
the purchase of products made with recycled materials for anything
13
other than paper products.
3) Numerous tax laws exist which benefit those who extract or use
virgin resources, and make it difficult for those who use recycled
materials to compete favorably on the open market.
4) Current accelerated depreciation rates apply to processes designed to
prevent air or water pollution, but not to those designed to prevent land
pollution, i.e. that pollution which steins from disposal or lack of disposal
of solid waste. For example, a scrap processor who installs a
car shredder is allowed accelerated depreciation on only that part
of his installation designed to control air pollution which results
from dust. It has been argued that the tax incentive should be
granted to the entire investment, since the entire machinery fights
15
pollution in one way or another.
Everything mentioned up to this point suggest specific areas in
which Federal intervention could alleviate the solid waste disposal
crisis and also aid recycling. However, a number of other measures are
necessary, as well. New York City's Environmental Protection Administra-
tion recommends additional areas in which strong Federal action is needed.
-------
i - 195 -
They recommend a recycling incentive tax such as New York City's where
a national tax could be levied on all packagers, in an attempt to mini-
mize all excess packaging and to foster environmentally sound packaging.
They also suggest a reclamation allowance that would involve some form of
Federal subsidy for the use of reclaimed materials. Another area for im-
provement is in the delineation of technical standards. Could a product
be made in a manner that would make recycling easier? (i.e. by only
making glass containers in one color, would glass be easier to reprocess?)
Do certain materials deter recycling when they are used in a product?
Qould they be replaced? (A classic example is that of census forms—they
are made from a high grade paper that would recycle well, but are printed
with an insoluble ink that can't be removed.)
EPA should be expending increased effort to determine clearly what
aspects of Federal policy are inhibiting resource recovery, and how they
can be changed without hurting the economy. The costs of using our dimin-
ishing natural resources at an unprecedented rate are, unfortunately, rarely
calculated in an empirical manner. Not only must resource recovery be
encouraged because it is a less wasteful production process, it must be
fostered because it allows us to use our land in far better ways than for
sanitary landfill, open dumps or junkyards. It cannot be emphasized too
often that land is as vital a resource as air or water are, and current
solid waste disposal procedures are abusing this resource.
-------
- 196 -
FOOTNOTES
Section III - Open Land and Water Areas, Development Patterns and
Environmental Quality
9. Solid Waste Disposal and Land Use
1, New York City Environmental Protection Administration, "Solid Waste
Operations in New York City," (New York: New York City Environmental
Protection Administration, n.d.), p. 4.
2. Written testimony submitted by Marvin Gersten, Commissioner of
Purchase and Jerome Kretchmer, Environmental Protection Administrator,
City of New York at Hearings of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy of
the Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, Ninety-Second Congress,
First Session, November 8 and 9, 1971. Hearings on the Economics of
Recycling Waste Materials, p. 95 text.
3. "City Wants Waste Dumped in the Ocean," New York Times. September 27, 1972,
4. Testimony of Marvin Gersten and Jerome Kretchmer at above hearing.
5. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Central New York Regional Comprehensive Solid
Wastes Management Plan, Prepared for the Central New York Regional
Planning and Development Board and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, October 27, 1971, Vol. I, pp. 28, 108-110.
6. Ibid., p. 110.
7. Ibid.
8. New York City Environmental Protection Administration, "Solid Waste
Operations...", pp. 8-9.
9. Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: The Third
Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, (Washington, D.C:
Council on Environmental Quality, August, 1972), p. 204.
10. Ibid., pp. 131-32.
11. Interview with William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in Catalyst For Environmental Quality, Vol. 2, No. 2.
12. Testimony of M.J. Mighdoll, Executive Vice-President, National Association
of Secondary Material Industries at above hearing, pp. 15-17, text.
13. Ibid., p. 17.
14. Statement of Thomas A. Davis, tax attorney, at above hearing, p. 41, text.
15, Statement of Jeffrey S. Padnos, NYC EPA, on behalf of Jerome Kretchmer,
Administrator, at above hearing, p. 109, text.
-------
- 197 -
SECTION IV
EPA AND LAND USE: FUTURE GOALS
If EPA is to be effective in meeting its mandate to protect the
environment, it must focus its efforts on two different levels.
First, the agency must be prepared to act quickly to combat pollution
as it occurs, and second, the agency must attempt to prevent future
environmental crises from occurring. It is the opinion of the Youth
Advisory Board, that thus far the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has been focusing its efforts too much on reaction to immediate
crisis situations. There is some justification for this approach in
light of the newness of the EPA and its difficulties in countering a
large backlog of environmental problems that had not been dealt with.
However, this trend cannot continue if EPA hopes to function successfully
in the future.
The Third Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality
states that:
Throughout society, there is a growing need to turn
from management by reaction to management by antic-
pation of problems. This anticipatory approach to
management requires a substantial amount of fore-
casting. 1
To implement an "anticipatory approach," EPA must rely increasingly upon
new forecasting and environmental simulation techniques made possible by
the computer to predict potential environmental problems. Increasing
-------
- 198 -
emphasis should be placed upon the forecasting of pollution from proposed
residential, commercial, and industrial developments within this context.
The rationale for future increased EPA involvement with land use
is compelling. As has been demonstrated, development of the land largely
determines what type and quantity of environmental pollution occurs. The
Youth Advisory Bd., recognizes that EPA has no direct authority to design
or regulate urban or suburban developments at this time. However, EPA
could have significant input into the process by which our landscape is
shaped if it followed the recommendations that the President's Water
Pollution Control Advisory Board and the President's Air Quality Advisory
Board made earlier this year:
That the Environmental Protection Agency move purpose-
fully to improve coordination with other Federal
agencies whose activities affect or are affected by
air and water quality standards; provide more
environmental planning guidance to Federal, State and
local agencies together with close coordination and
cooperation with local, regional and State land use
planner and policy makers; and make full use of
present authority to affect land use decisions with
respect to all environmental quality.
At the joint meeting of the President's Air and Water Advisory
Boards held in March, 1972, many testified to the effect that although
most professional planners would be willing to cooperate in developing
land use plans which paid extensive attention to environmental effects,
planners need to be taught how to include these factors into the planning
process. EPA could play a vital role in this education process. Any
parcel of land or any community can be developed in numerous ways. EPA
must take the responsibility of teaching planners how to evaluate alternative
development plans for environmental impact.
-------
- 199 -
However, if EPA is to perform this function, it must hire planners
who understand both land use and environmental quality and their inter-
relationships. Although this region has made some progress towards that
point by hiring "land-use people" within the Air Programs Division,
significant progress is required beyond that initial step.
There is as great a need for the employment of planners in Water
Programs and Solid Waste Programs, as there is in Air Programs. Little
research has been done upon the effects of various land uses on the water
quality of a watershed. Part of the reason for this is the difficulty of
relating land uses to water and soil systems. Scientists are only be-
ginning to discover the pathways through the soil that the pollutants
take, eventually polluting the water.
In general, our ignorance of the relationships between land use and
most environmental pollution is appalling. However it is not difficult
to see why we know so little. Coordination between the agencies that
monitor development, the scientists, the environmental control agencies
and the agencies that provide the impetus for which development is almost
nonexistent. Even if uneasy alliances existed, it would be extremely
difficult to use this coordination fruitfully. Each agency speaks its
own language and lacks the type of personnel who are capable of breaking
through interdisciplinary barriers to use results from another field.
If EPA wishes to become involved in a land use approach to prevent
pollution, then it must hire individuals with hybrid backgrounds. One
type of ideal background would be an ecologist with another degree in re-
source planning or an economist with a degree in chemistry. People are
needed who have diverse backgrounds, particularly in the fields of systems
analysis and management, who can provide unique solutions because of their
holistic approach.
-------
- 200 -
However, there are a number of systems already developed that
could conceivably improve coordination between agencies, and hopefully
lead to improved environmental quality. The New York State Office of
Planning Services has developed an information system that shows in
detail how the land resources of New York State are being utilized.
This system, LUNR (Land Use and Natural Resource Inventory), collects
and assembles its data by transposing land use and natural resource
information from aerial photos (at a scale of one inch equals 2,000 feet)
directly onto overlays for each 7%' LTSGS quadrangle map. The information
is subsequently recorded for each one-kilometer square grid cell within
the quadrangle, producing three primary products:
1. LUNR Inventory overlays, which may be reproduced on
transparent ozalid, for example;
2. Graphic displays of the information in map form by
means of a computer graphic program; and
3. Computer analyses and tabular summaries of classifi-
cation items, prepared concurrently with or inde-
pendently of the map printout.4
Currently, two separate types of applications have been found for
LUNR. The first type is for representing the pattern of land uses for
a village, town or county. LUNR has assisted local planners, privatf
developers, local government officials, etc., in performing such functions
as drafting zoning ordinances. The second type of application for the
overlays that LUNR produces is in analyzing specific potential project
-------
Agriculture
Areas:
Ao - Orchards
Av — Vineyards
Ah - Horticulture, floriculture
Ay - Specialty farms
At - High-intensity cropland
Ac - Cropland and cropland pasture
Ap — Permanent pasture
Ai — Inactive agricultural lands
Ui — Other inactive lands
Uc - Lands under construction
Point data:
Specialty farms (Ay): types present
Mink (y-1)
Pheasant and game (y-2)
Aquatic agriculture (y-5)
Horse farms (y-6)
Dairy operations (d): number
Poultry operations (e): number
Active farmsteads (f): number
Forest Land
Areas:
Fc — Forest brushland
Fn — Forest land
Fp — Plantations
Water Resources
Areas:
Wn — Natural ponds and lakes (1 acre +)
We — Artificial ponds and reservoirs (1 acre +)
Ws - Streams and rivers (100' +)
-------
Figure 9
Computer Graphic- Printout
"Total Agricultural Land Area (A)
Scalel" = 2 km.
ouoseooooo
•••••GUOOGXXXXXOOOGOOOOOO-M-M-I-39MMI
§88888888
•ftBEOOOOOXX XXX OOOOOOOGOG-n-n-ni 9©8d
6666908 88W
GGGOGGOOGCfi£BBGGOGGXXXXXXXXXX8B«
GCQGOGGOOCCfiBBGGOGOXXXXXXXXXXflBatll'
OGGGGCOGGBBBBBGOOGOXXXXXXXXXXdM
8886 XXXXX
x xx x o o oooeeeeeweeeeeeeeeeeeea x xx x x
rXX
fc XXXXX
BB..O....0..88
0088808887B80050000500
,BBBBBoooooaaaaasseesoooooooooo
eeeeeoooooaaaaaeeeeeeeeee...
. XX XXX 8888868000 » * +++88888888(8 8666881
.XX4XX6e6ee6e6ee++3++88788BB8Haee68«B«8i
,., ffftt BBBBfiee888886e8XXXXXeeB
,«« ,ffff BJtB»Baei§Bee8eeeXXXXX88e
2,«..0....0..,»lf, XUGtsfiBiaa 78888u8aXX4XX8«7
»ffff BICGBB8e3838d888XXXXX9e«
.....,,,,,GGG0088888fl8B8888
ftt
» i »
Iff
.....
..0..
Wh -• Hudson River
Wm — Marine lakes, rivers, and seas
Wb — Shrub wetlands, bogs, marshes
Ww - Wooded wetlands
Point data:
Natural ponds and lakes (n): number
Artificial ponds and reservoirs (c): number
Ponds less than 1 acre in size (p): number
Lake shoreline (1): miles
Streams and rivers (s): miles
Nonproductive Land
Areas:
Ms-Sand (unstabilized)
Nr - Rock (exposed)
Residential Land Gse
Areas:
Rh - High density (50' frontage)
Rm — Medium density (50 -100' frontage)
Rl - Low density (100' + frontage)
Re — Residential estates (5 acres +)
Rs — Strip development
Rr — Rural hamlet
Re — Farm labor camp
Rk — Shoreline cottage development
Point data:
Shoreline developed in cottages (k): miles
High-rise apartment buildings (z): number
Trailer parks (v): number
-------
Rural non farm residences never a farm residence (x): number
RUM! non-faim teiidencet once a farm residence (o); number
Commercial Areas
Areas:
Cu - Central business district
Cc - Shopping center
Cs — Strip development
Cr - Resorts
Industrial Areas
Areas:
II — Light manufacturing
Ih - Heavy manufacturing
Extractive Industry
Areas:
Es — Stone quarries
Eg — Sand and gravel pits
Em — Metallic mineral extraction
EU - Underground mining
Point data:
Underground mining (Eu): types present
Oil and gas (u-1)
Salt (u-2)
Othet(u-3)
Abandoned (u-4)
Outdoor Recreation
Areas:
OR — All outdoor recreation facilities
Point data:
Outdoor recreation facilities (OR): types present
Golf courses (OR-1)
Ski areas, other winter sports (OR-2)
Beaches and pools (OR-3)
Marinas, boat launching sites (OR-4)
Campgrounds (OR-5)
Drive-in theaters, race tracks, amusement parks (OR-6)
Fairgrounds (OR-8)
Public parks (OR-9)
Shooting, archery (OR-13)
Private company facilities, community areas (OR-16)
Public and Semi-Public Land Uses
Areas:
P — All public and semi-public areas
Point Data:
Public and semi-public areas (P): types present
Educational institutions (P-1)
Religious institutions (P-2)
Health institutions (P-3)
Military bases and armories (P-4)
Solid waste disposal (P-5)
Cemeteries (P-6)
Watei KUpply tieatment (P '/)
Sewage treatment plants (P-8)
Flood control structures (P-9)
Correctional institutions (P-11)
Road equipment centers (P-12)
Welfare centers, county farms (P-16)
Transportation
Areas:
Th — Highway interchanges, limited access right-of-way, et
Tr — Railway facilities
Ta — Airport facilities
Tb — Barge Canal facilities
Tp - Marine port and dock facilities
Ts - Shipyards
Tl — Marine locks
Tt - Communication and utility facilities
Point data:
Highway category (h): highest present
None (h-o)
Unimproved, gravel, town roads (h-3)
Two-three lane highway (h-4)
Four-lane highway (h-5)
Divided highway (h-6)
Limited access highway (h-7)
Limited access interchange (h-8)
Railway facilities (Tr): types present
Abandoned right-of-way (r-1)
Active track (r-2)
Switching yards (r-3)
Stations and structures (r-4)
Spur (r-5)
Airport facilities (Ta): types present
PersonaT(a-l)
Non-commercial (a-2)
Commercial (a-3)
Airline (a-4)
Military (a-5)
Heliport (a-6)
Seaplane base (a-7)
Barge Canal facilities (Tb): types present
Channel (b-1)
Lock (b-2)
Abandoned channel (b-3)
Communications and utilities (Tt): types present
TV-radio tower (t-1)
Microwave station (t-2)
Gas and oil — long-distance transmission (t-3)
Electric power - long-distance transmission (t-4)
Water — long-distance transmission (t-5)
Telephone - long-distance transmission (t-6)
-------
- 201
sites from the point of view of environmental impact, costs of purchase
or development, means of preservation, etc. LUNR has been used to help
locate parks and sanitary landfill sites, to route utility lines, to
select alternate highway corridors, to conduct watershed studies, etc.
For example, watersheds have been studied using the LUNR overlays to
pinpoint potential sources of pollution.
The New York State Office of Planning Services feels that:
The major benefits of the computerized LUNR information
system are its ability to produce a clear graphic output
quickly, at low cost and with great flexibility. The
display of data is the simplest task for computer graphic
programs. Its complete capability is yet to be realized
in land use planning. Its ability to handle huge amounts
of data in analyses opens new horizons...the LUNR system
can be a dynamic analytical tool with great potential for
policy makers and technicians.6
It is vital that EPA fully cooperate with the New York State
Office of Planning Services in utilizing the capabilities of LUNR as
extensively as possible. Potential applications are numerous and would
help EPA expand its capabilities designed to prevent environmental
damage before it occurs.
Another system that could help EPA evaluate future environmental
impacts is the Environmental Evaluation System (EES) developed by
Battelle-Columbus Laboratories for the Bureau of Reclamation. Designed
to assist in assessing environmental impacts of water resource develop-
ment projects proposed by the Bureau, the EES is based upon a hierarchical
arrangement of environmental quality indicators. This arrangement
classifies the major areas of environmental concern into major categories,
components, and ultimately into parameters and measures of environmental
-------
- 202 -
quality. The intent is to provide a balance between too little and too
much detail, thus, environmental impact evaluations are made in four
major categories (ecology, environmental pollution, aesthetics, and
human interest) which are further broken down into 18 components and
finally, 78 parameters.
There are a number of features of the EES which makes it particularly
suited for EPA use. First, the EES is interdisciplinary in nature, and
development of the system was performed by a team consisting of civil
engineers, water resource management specialists, sociologists, ecologists,
landscape architects, management experts, etc. Thus, the EES can
represent a step toxvards improved communications with a number of other
specialized agencies. Second, the EES provides a means for measuring
or estimating selected environmental impacts in commensurate units.
This can help EPA ;to more intelligently allocate its resources accord-
ing to where need is the greatest in terms of potential environmental
impact. Third, the EES helps to indicate fragile elements of the environ-
ment which must be studied in more detail. The system does this by
measuring differences in the environmental quality of a parameter with
and without a proposed project. EPA could then attempt to measure the
direct environmental benefits of a proposed project before it is begun.
The use of these type of systems could lead not only to a preventative
approach to environmental quality control, but to a more integrated effort
in which problems are dealt with in context as being part of a system.
Unfortunately, however, not only is insufficient attention paid by EPA
to a system approach to environmental problem solving, the divisions of
EPA also do not function as if they were part of one large environmental
-------
203 -
problem solving system. Based on the contact that the Land Use Task
Force have had with EPA, it appears as if there is poor communication
and coordination between program divisions of EPA. Few members of the
staff have an integrated view of the forces affecting the problem they
are assigned to solve, and consequently they devise inadequate solutions.
Some divisions are attacking components of the same problems, while
operating under different assumptions. One simple example of the general
lack of awareness within EPA that it is an environmental problem solving
organization is the absence of any pollution saving actions by the agency
as it goes about its daily functioning. Countless buttons are turned
out urging "Clean Air"--made of hard to dispose of metal alloys, electric
pencil sharpeners are present while the agency makes no effort to collect
for recycling its own waste papers and newspapers (let along those of
the entire Federal Building complex).
If inter-division communication is poor, communication between
EPA and state and local agencies in this region is poorer still.
For example, it has come to the attention of the Youth Advisory Board
that water data is not exchanged between EPA and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.7 It would seem that exchange
of such information would make the functioning of both agencies more
efficient and effective.
Within EPA, coordination should extend to frequent inter-departmental
meetings, some of which could be held as an informal "brown bag lunch" in
which topics that affect more than one department could be discussed.
However, for the purpose of this report, in which the main concern is the
-------
204
inter-relationship between land use and EPA's role and duties, suggestion*
will be directed at implementing a land use approach through and between
Divisions.
One type of administrative restructuring that would lead to in-
creased focusing on land use would be the creation of an entire Land
Resources Division within EPA. There are obvious difficulties with this
approach. It would require new legislation and would entail a drastic
change in EPA structure. Further, there would be no guarantees that the
Land Division could communicate with other Divisions more effectively
than seems to be occurring now. A chief advantage of such a change
would be, however, the recognition that EPA cannot take a systematic
approach to environmental quality improvement without the consideration
of land use. EPA should seriously consider the advantages that would
come with the creation of such a Division.
Alternatively, or in the interim, EPA should consider establishing
a Land Use Council at the regional level similar to the one that exists
in the National EPA office. This would certainly be a more viable short-
range solution to the lack of an entity charged with considering land
use within EPA, and the lack of coordination between Divisions in
relations to land use (and most other things). The Regional Land Use
Council would be a body of representatives of each EPA Division that
would meet regularly to coordinate the approach that the EPA is taking
to regional land use problems. The representatives could either be the
Division Heads, or else, could be the planners hired to work with each
Division, as well as other representatives of the Divisions.
-------
- 205
The duties of such a Land Use Council would be varied. They should
include the following functions:
1. Making recommendations to the Divisions concerning the ways
in which their actions are affecting, and are being affected
by land use in the region.
2. Studying land use projections for Region II and recommend-
ing to the appropriate Divisions priorities for enforcement
actions or grant monies based upon anticipated population
growth trends and consequent developing land use patterns.
3. Recommending to the appropriate Divisions, specific research
that is required in order to maintain land, air and water
quality.
4. Recommending to the Divisions how they might more effectively
coordinate their actions in all areas of EPA concern.
-------
206
FOOTNOTES
Section IV - EPA and Land Use: Future Goals
1. Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: The Third
Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C:
Council on Environmental Quality, August, 1972), p. 51.
2. President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board and President's Air
Quality Advisory Board, Report to the Administrator of the EPA,
"Statement on the Relationship Between Environmental Quality and Land
Use," in The Relationship Between Environmental Quality and Land Use
(March 31, 1972)
3. A number of interesting discussions of the need for interdisciplinary
solutions and the obstacles to interdisciplinary working relationships
with respect to improving environmental quality exist. Several which
might be of interest follow.
Andrew F. Euston, Jr., "Effects of the Physical Environment on Human
Behavior," Planning '70 (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials,
1970)
Constance Perin, With Man in Mind: An Interdisciplinary Prospectus for
Environmental Design (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1970)
Robert W. Kates, "Stimulus and Symbol: The View From the Bridge,"
Journal of Social Issues (October, 1966)
Glenn L. Paulson, "Human Behavior and Buildings Over Roads," Planning '70
(Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1970)
4. Roger A. Swanson, The Land Use and Natural Resource Inventory of New
York State (Albany, N.Y: New York State Office of Planning Coordination,
June, 1969), p. 3.
5. Robert Crowder, "New York State Land Use and Natural Resource Inventory:
What It Is and How It Is Used," (Albany, N.Y: New York State Office
of Planning Services, September, 1971), p.5. (Mimeographed.)
6. Swanson, Land Use...of New York State, p. 10.
7. According to Ron Maylath of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation as told to Miguel Antonetti-Alvarez, member of the Youth
Advisory Board, Region II-EPA.
-------
Region II Land Use Task Force Report
Recommendations
Section I - Urbanization and Fringe Development
1. EPA should provide technical assistance to communities attempting to
deal with their environmental problems through land use regulation.
Special attempts must be made to assist those communities too small
to support full-time professional staff.
2. EPA should provide financial assistance for research purposes to those
communities seeking to weigh the environmental impacts of alternative
land use plans.
3. EPA should continue to testify and lobby for Federal legislation con-
cerning a comprehensive national land use policy and program.
4. EPA should testify and lobby for state legislation in New York
or New Jersey designed to give increased land use regulatory powers
to regional or statewide agencies. These agencies could then more
effectively and efficiently control development patterns, and thus,
help curtail regional environmental problems.
5. EPA should research, publish and disseminate information discussing
land as a resource, its scarcity, and the implications for other
environmental resources of its misuse.
6. EPA should consider land use and misuse more significantly in all
environmental impact statement reviews, and in the statements which
EPA prepares
-------
- 208
7. EPA speakers can attempt to reach groups of land developers and
explain the environmental consequences of sprawled and poorly planned
development. The technical expertise of agencies such as HUD may be
called upon to help give alternatives; especially, alternatives which
are not only more environmentally sound, but more economical for the
developer.
8. EPA should lend its resources and its authority to the movement to end
the extreme dependence upon property taxes by municipalities in the
States of New York and New Jersey. If community facilities, and par-
ticularly, schools were supported through other means, it would be far
easier to implement rational land use plans. Thus, many of those envir-
onmental problems associated with poorly planned development could be
eliminated.
9. EPA should consider the funding of research into the ways in which
land speculation leads to the environmental pollution that EPA is
expected to help control. The results of such research can be used
to help document the need for the protection of land as a resource,
as well as air and water.
10. EPA should make maximum use of its cooperative agreement with HUD con-
cerning the dispersal of sewer grants. Sewer lines are a powerful incen-
tive to growth. This growth can, and often does surpass the environmental
capabilities of the land. EPA should assist HUD to the fullest extent
possible in ascertaining what environmental resources are available in
the area, and what types and amount of growth they can support. At the
same time, HUD should be assessing the capability of the municipality
to deal with sudden growth.
-------
209 -
11. EPA should assist in the education of governmental officials as to the
potentially dangerous environmental effects of allowing developers to
build extensive septic tank subdivisions (particularly in coastal areas)
and other detrimental land use practices. Although municipalities are
often hungry for tax base, the water pollution that can result from this
practice can ultimately end up costing far more to control. Property tax
reform would eventually help to alleviate this problem, but at this point
time, communities should insist that the developer pay substantial portions
of the cost of sewering.
12. EPA should cooperate with other concerned Federal agencies in funding
research aimed at examining and producing methods by which residential,
commercial and industrial development can proceed with the least envir-
onmental impact.
13. EPA should fund research into the establishment of government land banks
such as exist in a number of other countries. This would enable all
future land needed to be acquired in advance at government expense and
eventually developed or preserved as deemed appropriate. The establish-
ment of such land banks would make EPA's functioning much easier as:
a) When development was required, a unified and appropriate parcel
would be available. Development consistent with environmentally
sound goals would not be dependent upon the whim of land speculators.
b) Appropriate open space could be easily protected.
c) Critical natural areas could be protected.
14. EPA should press for the establishment of state, and where possible, muni-
cipal level environmental impact review processes, with special attention
paid to land use.
-------
- 210 -
15) EPA should carefully monitor the environmental problems occurring in
Puerto Rico, as haphazard and rapid development take place within an
extremely limited eco-system. Because of its size and geography, future
environmental problems of Puerto Rico may help alert us to what problems
the mainland may face in the coming generations.
16) EPA should fund research into planning systems such as the one that
Ian McHarg uses which relies upon the natural features of the land in
determining the location of facilities and settlements. If urban
developments were located with greater care, much long-range envir-
onmental damage could be avoided.
-------
211 -
Section II - Transportation and Environmental Pollution
1. Although EPA should continue to press for increasingly strict legis-
lation concerning automobile emission controls, it should begin
devoting more time to preventative air pollution control methods that
also further rational land management. That is, efforts should be
increasingly oriented towards discouraging unnecessary automobile use
or highway construction, rather than towards preventing pollution by
simply controlling emissions from individual vehicles. EPA should use
a variety of tactics in working towards that goal.
2. EPA should initiate the creation of an extensive education program for
various groups within the population.
a) First, EPA should fund programs designed to educate the public
at large. EPA could offer free courses under the auspices of adult
education centers, community centers, and civic associations.Alter-
natively, EPA could conduct training classes designed to teach those
who could then conduct the courses. The subject matter should in-
clude information as to the benefits of land use development patterns
that do not require the continuous use of the automobile, new forms
of residential development, and other information that helps the
public to understand that their behavior patterns and preferences
contribute to the environmental pollution that they must live with.
b) EPA should prepare instruction curricula that could be distributed
to school teachers for school levels through first year college.
These curricula should contain information about land, how cities
evolve, how people get from one place to another. At lower grades,
children must be taught as soon as possible that land is a resource
that demands protection and that there are real alternatives to the
ways in which land is now exploited, instead of carefully used. In-
cluded in school instruction should be a new perspective on the
automobile, so that perhaps the next generation need not grow up
thinking of the automobile as a status symbol or as a necessity,
but as something that some people must use to travel with. Possibly
all such environmental education programs should be placed under
EPA's auspices rather than those of HEW.
3. EPA must conduct an education program for the highway planners within
this region. They are currently responsible for significant portions
-------
212
of the environmental damage that EPA is charged with preventing, yet
many of them regard environmental concern as a mere fad. A course out-
lining the environmental effects of automobile use and highway use
and construction would be in order, as well as current Federal and
state environmental law as it relates to automobile use. Within this
education program should be a section devoted to the environmental im-
pact statement process as it relates to the role of the highway planner.
The 102 Statement ostensibly exists to prevent governmental agencies
such as EPA and DOT from working at cross purposes with each other.
Yet, it has not proved to be as effective as it could be, partially
due to the huge volume of statements submitted in relation to highway
construction, and the inadequacy of the statements prepared on many
highway projects. EPA must help clarify for the highway planners
when an impact statement is required, and how one should be written.
4. If the ambiguity of the current law prohibits such clarification, EPA
should seek legislative definition of environmental impact guidelines.
5. EPA must seek to expand communication channels with DOT, FHWA (Federal
Highway Administration), and state agencies concerned with transportation.
environmental protection and land use planning, as such agencies could
work more effectively in assuring that transportation and land develop-
ment were planned cooperatively for improved environmental quality. In
working towards that goal, Transportation Control Meetings such as the
one that EPA-Region II held in September, 1972 should occur more freq-
uently. Frequent and regular meetings of all major transportation,
land use and environmental agencies within a small area could be held.
-------
213
6. EPA must lobby, testify for, and otherwise use all of its influence to
assist in the effort to release Highway Trust Fund money for mass
transit. Compelling evidence for the environmental necessity of
this measure is readily available in Region II, particularly in the
New York Metropolitan Region. In working towards this goal, EPA
should cooperate with any agency or organization collecting infor-
mation on environmental damage caused by automobiles to be used as
evidence. Pressure should be applied by EPA upon the legislators whose
motivations for voting against measures to release such funds revolve
around the financial benefits that they derive from the highway lobby
and the construction industries.
7- EPA should fund research into innovative transportation modes, particu-
larly those that do not seem to be getting the attention that they
deserve, especially from state transportation agencies. Dial-a-bus,
people movers, and many other forms of personal rapid transit seem
deserving of EPA funds, which could help finance a joint research
effort with HUD and DOT.
8. EPA should fund research designed to minimize the air, noise and land
pollution that existing transportation modes cause. Such transit systems
as the New York City subway represent too substantial a capital invest-
ment to be replaced for many years to come. However, it could be made
far quieter. Automobile-caused pollution could be reduced much further.
Such research should be funded on a cooperative basis with DOT and with
concerned city and state agencies.
-------
214
9. EPA should apply all possible pressure upon the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey to begin funding transit in the New York Metropolitan
Region.
10. EPA should hire a staff designed to provide technical assistance to
communities interested in using land use controls to aid in minimizing
the effects of pollution from transportation systems and from other
sources. Many communities lack the necessary staff and expertise, and
often tend to be ignorant of many aspects of environmental pollution.
EPA's services could be invaluable to such small communities. For
example, EPA could also assist those communities interested in preventing
such pollution through alternate land arrangements. This is particularly
related to transportation, as unnecessary air pollution can be avoided
when communities are planned so that much is within walking distance or
easy public transportation.
11. EPA should attempt to hire more staff for its Noise Division, particularly
staff with some skill in relating noise to land use. Regional staff level
of one individual part-time is most inadequate to deal with the pressing
needs of this region.
12. EPA should press New York City to require all future large developments
in the city to incorporate their own environmental systems within the
development, or pay for the city to develop what extra facilities will be
needed. This should occur in advance of need, so that they will be ready
on time. The aim would be to prevent the construction of facilities any-
where near the scale of the World Trade Center, without first making sure
that their environmental effects can be adequately dealt with. EPA should
-------
215
carefully monitor the impact statements of all such projects using
Federal funds.
13. EPA should evalute extremely carefully the environmental impact
statement on the Richmond Parkway, at the time that it is submitted for
final review (if that time comes.) If possible, EPA should attempt to
document the environmental damage that would result from construction
of Section I of the Parkway in terms of the land use implications in-
volved, as well as in terms of such criteria as air, noise and water.
14. In general, whenever possible, land use should be discussed within the
impact statements that EPA prepares and evaluates, particularly when a
statement is submitted for a proposed highway.
-------
216
Section III - Open Land and Water Areas, Development Patterns and
Environmental Quality
1. EPA should recognize the necessity of providing stronger support
for resource recovery systems. EPA ambient air quality
standards and stricter legislation governing ocean dumping have jeo-
pardized much open space, particularly in the New York Metropolitan
Region, as new sanitary landfill sites are sought.
2. EPA should reinvestigate the ways in which it allocates
funds between program divisions. It is possible that reallocation could
utilize the same sums more efficiently. For example, it is not incon-
ceivable that if EPA provided markedly increased assistance in such areas
as recycling programs within its Solid Waste Division, it could alleviate
some of the strain being placed upon other EPA programs involving water
resources. This could occur if water recharge areas, such as wetlands,
were stringently protected from sanitary landfill, and at the same time
were allowed to serve as natural water generating areas. In general,
EPA should assist local, regional and state planning and environmental
agencies in locating sanitary landfills more intelligently.
3. EPA should seriously evaluate the present policies governing the dispersal
of research grants for resource recovery research. The National Resource
Recovery Act specifically provides in Section 205 that no grants may be
made to "profit making organizations." This is unrealistic in that the
private sector must inevitably be deeply involved in a major national
recycling effort, and that the young recycling industry still faces
serious economic problems. There are strong precedents for research
grant dispersal to private industry (notably in the area of war-related
-------
- 217
research).
4. EPA must put increased effort into combatting those Federal policies
which discriminate against resource recovery. These policies include
differential transportation rates for virgin versus recycled materials
and tax incentives for extractive industries.
5. EPA should study some of the tax proposals that have been made to
lessen the solid waste waste burden and to support resource recovery
programs. Among these proposals are suggestions for a recycling incen-
tive tax and a reclamation allowance.
6. EPA should fund research into improved technical standard delineation
that would aid a resource recovery effort. Attempts can be made, for
example, to ascertain whether certain materials deter recycling when
they are placed in a project, and whether they can be replaced.
7. EPA should fund research designed to examine more carefully the potential
beneficial effects of open space and vegetation for air and water quality
and for noise pollution control. EPA should also attempt to ascertain
how severely such open space areas and the vegetation within them are
affected by high pollution levels, such as those existing in many portions
of New York City.
8. EPA should furid studies designed to investigate the possible economic
benefits of preserving open space with particular applications to EPA
programs and funding levels.
9. EPA should testify, lobby for, and otherwise assist in changing Federal
allocation formulas governing open space grants. Current formulas dis-
-------
218
criminate against urban areas and populous states. It would be ex-
tremely relevant for Region II EPA to seek a remedy to those unfair
formulas, as lack of Federal funding for open space in the urban areas
of New York and New Jersey may be having profound impact upon environ-
mental quality in the region.
10. EPA should become familiar with all methods available for preserving
open space, and assist local communities attempting to save open land
by providing technical information to them and referring them to
other sources of such information.
11. EPA should urge that Federal money be allocated as part of the commitment
to Gateway National Recreation Area to assure that the environmental
quality of the area is not harmed through extensive automobile commutation
to this area. Federally subsidized transit improvements would not only
help to retain the environmental quality of Gateway, they would enable
the inner-city residents to reach Gateway who cannot afford the luxury
of automobile use.
12. EPA should make special efforts to utilize the funds that will be
forthcoming through the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act to upgrade
the water quality of the Gateway National Recreation Area.
13. EPA should act more efficiently in utilizing Section 10 (a) of the
Water Pollution Control Act to require that poultry farming industries
abate their discharges. EPA should attempt to work with farmers to
achieve voluntary abatement, and if this is not forthcoming, further
action should be taken concerning the separation of the solid wastes
and the treatment of the supernatant.
-------
219
14. EPA should re-examine its allocation of construction grant money
for waste water treatment facilities. New York City does not
appear to be receiving nearly the amounts it should be entitled
to.
15. For the purposes of water quality maintenance, flood control, and
protection of a fragile eco-system, the EPA should place wetland
protection as a highest priority when considering alternative lands
for any usage.
16. EPA should urge the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission to
adopt the land development recommendations of the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection, in order to minimize the air and water
pollution in the Meadowlands.
17. EPA should request the State of New Jersey to reform its State Imple-
mentation Plan to accommodate the projections of the impact from the
proposed development within the Meadowlands.
18. EPA should request that the Nixon Administration release all funds
authorized by Congress under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
amendments of 1972. Until such funds are available EPA should dis-
courage any further development within the Meadowlands.
19. EPA should provide financial and technical assistance to the Hackensack
Meadowlands Development Commission towards the development of a re-
source recovery system. EPA should recommend to the Commission that
they not accept more than the mandated amount of garbage, in order to
extend the life of current landfills.
-------
220
20. EPA should assist in any way possible in the creation of a Long Island
Water Resources Board (and in the creation of such boards for other
areas of the Region encountering the same rapid development). Mecha-
nisms exist under current New York State law for such Water Resource
Boards (Article V, Part V, New York State Conservation Law).
21. EPA should assist in any way possible, and continue to urge Nassau
and Suffolk Counties to complete their sewering system in order to
help abate water pollution on Long Island. Cooperation with HUD
would be necessary in working towards this goal.
22. EPA should help to educate the public as to the consequences of uncon-
trolled growth in areas of limited and fragile natural resources. Long
Island's water problem helps to indicate the folly of allowing growth to
proceed ahead of resource planning.
23. EPA should continue its support for water recharge programs and studies
in this region, such as the current Wantagh, Long Island study.
24. EPA should press for interpretation of the Water Pollution Control Act
[Sections 11 (e) and 12 (a)] so as to forbid the storage of any toxic
materials upon floodplains.
25. EPA should press for stringent state and local legislation restricting
the use of floodplains for development.
-------
- 221
26. EPA should require that communities seeking EPA funding for the con-
struction of sewerage treatment facilities implement adequate floodplain
protection policies. Among the rationales that EPA could use for this
requirement would be Section 8 (b)(l) of the Water Pollution Control
Act.
27. EPA should use its authority in reviewing impact statements written
on development proposed for floodplain areas (that would utilize any
Federal funding) to discuss the environmental hazards that can occur
as a result of floodplain development. Special attention should be
paid to statements prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers concerning
proposed construction of dikes and dams in floodplain areas.
28. EPA should disseminate information concerning floodplain development
and its dangers to the public, and to local land development agencies.
Attempts should also be made to assist communities seeking to establish
floodplain controls who lack the necessary technical expertise to im-
plement such controls.
29. EPA should assist in any way possible in the establishment of statewide
Agricultural Resource Commissions designed to help preserve agricultural
land uses.
30. EPA should actively fight for the preservation of agricultural land uses
as part of a program to preserve open space. In addition, EPA should be
involved in attempts to channel any development that does occur along
environmentally sound patterns. To this end, an educational and infor-
mational approach is needed. EPA should cooperate with HUD, the Depart-
ment of Agriculture,.and involved state agencies towards reaching this
goal.
-------
- 222 -
31. EPA should take an active role in pressing for land development reforms
and for increased land use controls, including a reform of the real estate
tax system.
32. EPA should lobby to have Executive Order 11296 revised to include
environmental considerations.
-------
- 223
Section IV - EPA and Land Use: Future Goals
1. EPA should place increasing emphasis upon efforts to prevent future
environmental pollution. In working towards that goal, a land use
approach is essential.
2. EPA should begin to rely more heavily, where possible, upon new com-
puter technology and upon environmental simulation techniques to fore-
cast pollution levels that can be expected from proposed alternative
plans for land development.
3. Methodology developed at EPA's North Carolina research center should
be continually utilized, and this region should make sure that adequate
skilled manpower is available to make full use of those systems.
4. This region should hire both urban and regional planners to aid in the
communication process between owners of the land, those who develop
the land, those who regulate the land, and agencies charged with pro-
tecting the environment. Planners could also be of many other uses.
They could help in the process of identifying likely environmental
consequences of alternative land use plans, identify critical land areas
that need protection, aid in citizen participation, as well as provide
technical assistance to municipalities.
5. EPA should fund research into the process by which water pollutants
are introduced into the soil as a consequence of varied land develop-
ments. An extremely complicated area, much is unknown about this
aspect of water pollution. Cooperative research efforts could be
coordinated with ongoing programs, and with other concerned Federal
agencies, i.e., the Department of Agriculture.
-------
- 224 -
6. EPA should coordinate research efforts concerning effects upon envir-
onmental quality of proposed development with those of the New York
State Office of Planning Services (OPS). OPS has already devised the
Land Use and Natural Resources Inventory (LUNR), a program to identify
and record how the state's land resources are being utilized. Similar
efforts should be made to cooperate with the environmental quality
agencies of New York and New Jersey as well as the Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board.
7. EPA should begin utilizing the Environmental Evaluation System (EES)
developed by Battelle-Columbus Laboratories for the Bureau of Reclama-
tion. This system could assist the regional office in working towards
a preventative approach to pollution control, and in utilizing its
resources more efficiently.
8. The Land Use Task Force has observed a need for greater coordination
between the program divisions of EPA, and between EPA and other
agencies of the Federal and state governments. Such improved coordination
would lead to more productive output, less duplication of effort, and
a greater understanding of the inter-relationships that exist between
almost all endeavors.
9. Towards the goal of improved coordination within EPA, especially with
regard to land use as it affects EPA's programs, several systems are
possible. One alternative would be the creation of a land division
within EPA. However, at this point in time, due to funding, staffing
and ^organizational difficulties, it is recognized that this alternative
would not seem to be immediately practical. However, it should definitely
be considered a long-range possibility. Alternatively, or in the
-------
225
interim, a Land Use Council could be created similar to the one estab-
lished in the National EPA Office. Representatives of each EPA Division
would meet regularly to coordinate land use implications for and of
EPA programs. The Council would either be comprised of Division heads
or of planners employed within each Division. Duties of this Council
would be:
(a) To make recommendations to each Division concerning the ways in
which divisional programs are affecting land use of the region
or its component areas.
(b) To make recommendations concerning priorities for allocation of
grant money and enforcement action based upon anticipated and
burdgening industrial and population growth trends, and upon
consequent developing land use patterns.
(c) To recommend to the appropriate Divisions specific research that
might be required in order to maintain high land, air and water
quality.
(d) To recommend to the Divisions how they might more effectively
coordinate their actions in all areas of EPA concern.
------- |