ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PROCESS
Office of Transportation and
Land Use Policy
Air and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
September, 1974
-------
11851
ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PROCESS
INTRODUCTION
Under the Clean Air Act of 1970 and subsequent federal court decisions,
all areas which appear likely to exceed any air quality standards during the
1975-1985 period, either because of existing air quality problems or because of
pressures from new growth, are to be designated as Air Quality Maintenance
Areas (AQMA's). In these areas, an air quality management process must emerge
to bring together all current air pollution control efforts to produce an Air
Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP) as a framework for making decisions on future
growth and development, thereby ensuring that air quality standards will not
be exceeded. This effort must be integrated as a legally-enforceable
component of the overall State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Development and implementation of Air Quality Maintenance Plans will
involve a complex process encompassing many levels of government (State/
regional/local) and agencies with differing purposes. In addition, the concerns
of the general public and pertinent interest groups must be integrated into this
process. This paper has been written to stimulate thought in the critical area
of institutionalization of the AQMP process. As such, it offers alternatives
for evaluation as to their effectiveness in accomplishing air quality mainten-
ance planning and implementation in any particular area. Rather than setting
forth official EPA policy, this paper identifies several organizational alter-
natives for allocation of state and local authority and responsibility for
implementation of the air quality maintenance process. These alternatives are
neither mandatory nor exhaustive, but are intended to be suggestive for state
and local decisions on creation of an appropriate structure for their own areas.
-------
2
A. OVERALL CONSIDERATIONS
Whatever structure is selected, it must meet the constraints imposed
by the Clean Air Act. On the one hand, it must provide for review of all
future growth and development decisions significantly impacting air quality
in an Air Quality Maintenance Area, so as to ensure state and/or national
standards will not be exceeded. Hopefully, this will begin a process
whereby growth and development are continuously reviewed on a regular
(yearly basis in terms of their air quality implications. The structure
also must allow for effective and timely application as necessary of enforce-
able regulatory measures, including controls over source emissions and over
land decisions on the siting, timing and impact of new stationary and indirect
sources to prevent air quality standards from being exceeded. In addition,
ultimate responsibility for compliance must be vested in the Governor or
an agency designated by him -- in most states, presumably the State Air
Pollution Control Agency. However this does not preclude dlegation of
responsibility for preparation and implementation of all or portions of
the air quality maintenance process to other state-level agencies, regional
bodies, or local governments if these other agencies appear to be in a
better position to plan and implement the program in a particular area.
Beyond these constraints, the system should incorporate institutional
arrangements specifically reflecting each state and region's own unique
legal structure and traditional state/local relationships. First, the air
quality maintenance system, encompassing both planning and implementation
and oriented for attainment as well as maintenance of national standards,
should be established on a sufficient area-wide scale. In other words,
it should deal with interactions occurring between air quality and growth
-------
3
and development throughout the "problem shed" which is the geographic
base for the air quality maintenance process and plan. Normally, this
will be larger than a single county or city. In some cases this means
dealing with interstate as well as intrastate air pollution problems.
Second, the system should reflect integration between air pollution
control objectives and other state and local activities affecting or
affected by air quality considerations. This would appear to require:
(a) Use of a uniform set of growth and development projections
and policies in all components of the area's comprehensive plan (including
the air quality maintenance component of that plan).
(b) Incorporation in other components of the comprehensive
plan of the constraints necessary to attain and maintain air quality
standards.
Third, because of the complexity of relating air quality considerations
to growth and development decisions, unilateral planning and implementation
either by any one level of government or by any one agency should be
avoided. This means that the system should encompass inter-governmental
and inter-agency coordination and consultation in both the planning and
implementation phases. Effective consultation with concerned interest
groups, including the general public, is also imperative. This presents an
opportunity for the formation of citizen advisory groups. Such groups
would function both for input and for evaluation of strategies as they are
developed.
Avoidance of unilateral action is desirable not only in the maintenance
process itself; it applies equally to the selection of institutional options
-------
4
for air quality maintenance. Both the planning and establishment of the
air quality maintenance system and the subsequent implementation of control
measures under that system should involve close collaboration between the
state and its regional and local government entities.
Fourth, because the system is likely to rely heavily on inter-
governmental arrangements, it should include procedures for resolution of
conflicts among participating institutions which might otherwise impede
preparation or implementation of the air quality maintenance plan. Effective
capacity to establish an areawide consensus on growth and development pro-
jections and appropriate maintenance policies will be especially essential
since such consensus, along with national air quality standards, form the
base on which an effective AQMP will be built.
Fifth, consistent with the above criteria, it is desirable that responsi-
bility for whatever land use decisions are needed to ensure air quality
maintenance be delegated to the governmental level most directly involved
in determining the area's growth and development which has the legal authority
and capability to deal with these issues. Similarily, responsibility for
regulating emissions should be delegated, whenever possible, to an appropriate
local or regional air pollution control unit. In general, every attempt
should be made to delegate responsibility as fully as possible to those
levels of government which are closest to the problem and its solution.
Higher echelons of government should assume responsibility only when necessary
to ensure preparation of an adequate area-wide focus for the AQMP and compli-
ance with the plan's requirements across jurisdictional boundaries. Thus, a
strong possibility exists for regional and local governments having a voice
-------
5
1n setting and Implementing policy in this process.
B. AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES FOR INSTITUTIONALIZATION
Three principal alternatives have been identified as possible
institutional arrangements for meeting these constraints and achieving
these objectives. The order in which they are presented does not imply
any particular preference. Each alternative will undoubtedly have to
be modified in some respect to respond to the needs of a particular
state and local situation. Moreover, each has limitations and drawbacks.
Within these caveats, however, state and local decision makers are strongly
encouraged to consider these approaches in determining how best to proceed
jointly in implementing their own state air quality maintenance process.
Any adequate locally-selected alternative would seem preferable to a
federally-imposed solution.
In selecting the appropriate management structure, decision makers
must bear in mind the distinction between preparation of the air quality
maintenance plan and subsequent implementation of measures incorporated
in the plan. Preparation and implementation can occur at three basic
levels of government -- state,, regional and local -- and in either general-
purpose or special-purpose agencies, with a multitude of organizational
linkages effected as necessary. The three alternatives set forth below
may be summarized as follows:
-------
Level of Government Responsible for:
Preparation Implementation
Alternative 1 State State
Alternative 2 Regional Regional
Alternative 3 Regional Local
One could easily suggest variants of the first two approaches which would
retain State or Regional responsibility for plan preparation, but substi-
tute local governments as the echelon responsible for implementation of
plan measures. This would introduce many of the advantages of the third
alternative into either of the first two.
1. Alternative 1: Retention of Primary Responsibility in the State
Air Pollution Control Agency. Under this approach, primary responsibility
for the AQMP process would be detained in the state air pollution control
agency. This agency would thus be responsible both for preparation of the
AQMP and for implementation of whatever measures are needed to protect
air quality standards, including emissions controls and imposition of any
necessary constraints on local growth and development decisions. Diagram I
illustrates this approach.
This alternative would have the advantage of consolidating air quality
maintenance activities in the agency legally responsible in all states for
air pollution abatement and control, thus ensuring that revisions of the
State Implementation Plan accurately reflect maintenance requirements.
State agencies may have lesser problems than local governments in coping
with regional air quality maintenance across jurisdictional boundaries.
Emissions limitations on new sources could be enforced under this approach,
through traditional State review procedures, and coordination with a con-
-------
7
tinuing statewide overview of air quality maintenance would be facilitated.
Finally^ this agency in some states hastthe highest level of technical
expertise regarding air pollution monitoring, modeling and control tech-
nology.
However, there also are some distinct disadvantages to this approach.
Since State agencies traditionally have had little or no authority for
planning or decision making regarding land use, most would have to rely
for preparation of the AQMP on growth and development projections and
policies and decisions formulated by individual local governments. Simi-
larly, in the implementation phase although some states have recently
enacted statewide land use planning and environmental management legis-
lation, in most states should emissions limitations by themselves be
inadequate to avoid violations of the air quality standards, thus neces-
sitating some degree of review and control over new growth and develop-
ment in order to maintain air quality, the state agency would be placed
in the position of intervening in decisions traditionally left to cities,
counties, and other local general purpose governments. This difficulty
could be alleviated by combining alternatives laarid 3, substituting
local for State implementation of any land use measures called for in the
AQMP. This structure would seem particularly appropriate for inter-state
areas.
2. Alternative 2: Initial Responsibility Assigned to a Regional Agency.
Under this approach, primary responsibility for preparation of an
AQMP in a particular AQMA ,and for implementation of plan measures would
-------
8
DIAGRAM 1
AQMP PROCESS CARRIED OUT BY STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Other State
Agencies
-—>
71
STATE AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCY*
1
o Responsible for SIP Modifications
o Responsible for Preparation of
AQMP
o Responsible for Implementation
of maintenance measures (emission-
controls and land use constraints)
o Retains compliance responsibility
Transportation, Waste
Treatment and Other
Single-Purpose ' -'r::!
Agencies
v
COGs and Regional
Planning Qrgani-
zations
Counties, Cities, QtHer
Local Governments
o Provide Inputs
Upon Request
o Implement Measures
Upon Request
o Provide Inputs
Upon Request
o Evaluate Other
Plans for Con-
sistency With
Air Quality C
Constraints
o Provide Inputs
Upon Request
o Implement Measures
Upon Request
* Or other State agency designated by the Governor.
—Coordination.
-------
9
be delegated by the state to a regional air pollution control agency
covering that area, or to a regional agency having jurisdiction over
a number of area-wide programs. This assumes, of course, that such an
agency is in existence or could readily be brough into being. Diagram
2 applies:
This option has the advantage of Alternative 1, plus the advantage
of operating at a level compatible with the maintenance area, rather than
at the state level. Most disadvantages of Alternative 1 also apply;
especially so if, as now is true in theccase of existing agencies of this
nature, the regional agency lacks authority to adequately influence growth
and development decisions by local governments in the AQMA or even to
resolve conflicting policies and projections among these governments.
3. Alternative 3: Mix of Incremental Improvements in Existing State
and Local Organizational Arrangements. Under this approach, responsibilities
for development and implementation of an AQMP would be shared among existing
state, regional, and local agencies responsible for air quality management
and for growth and development decisions. These would include:
- state air pollution control agency
- genef.al purpose regional planning and coordination agency
(e.g., COG)
- regional air pollution control agency
- regional or metropolitan transportation agency
- local governments (counties and cities)
- possibly, an ad hoc Task Force at regional level
-------
10
DIAGRAM 2
AQMP PROCESS CARRIED OUT BY REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
OR REGIONAL MULTI FUNCTION AGENCY
OTHER STATE
AGENCIES
STATE AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCY*
o Responsible for SIP modifications
o Presidesbibserail guidance to
ensure coordination
o Retains ultimate compliance
responsibility
REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
OR REGIONAL MULTI-FUNCTION AGENCY
Transportation, Waste
Treatment and Other
Single-Purpose Organ-
izations
o Provides inputs
upon request
o Implement
measures upon
request
o Responsible for preparation of AQMP
o Responsible for implementation of
maintenance measures (emission
controls and land use constraints)
COGs and Regional Planning
Organizations
o Provides inputs
upon request
Counties, Cities, Other
Local Governments
o Provides inputs
upon request
o Imp'lenieBt measures
upon request
* Or other State agency designated by the Governor.
—Coordination.
-------
11
Diagram 3 depicts this approach.
Under this alternative, each element would be responsible for
exercising those functions for which it is most capable and traditionally
has been responsible. Some incremental modifications would be required,
but these would not significantly alter the pattern of existing inter-
governmental relationships.
Under the aegis of the state air pollution control agency, which
would retain ultimate responsiblity for air quality maintenance, the
COG, another regional coordination unit, or ancad hoc Task Force would
become the "leadoagency" for developing consensus among local governments
on growth and development projections and policies. The regional (or
state) air pollution control agency, along with the COG or another regional
coordination unit such as an ad hoc Task Force, would be jointly respons-
ible for preparing the AQMP, which would identify appropriate controls
and constraints, both on emissions and on further growth. Selection of
the appropriate implementation measures to be include in the plan, and
the phasing of their use, thus would be accomplished jointly by appro-
priate state, regional, and local governmental entities under the coordin-
ative leadership of the COG or Task Force. To be most effective,f,the
regional unit's coordination role should be based on prior, formal agree-
ment among all participants. This is essential because these other agencies
would remain responsible for.:1 actually implementing the regulatory measures
incorporated in the plan. Thus, emission limitations and similar activities
would be implemented by the air pollution control agency; transportation-
-------
12
DIAGRAM 3
AQMP PROCESS CARRIED OUT BY THE EXISTING INTER-INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
OTHER STATE
AGENCIES
STATE AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCY*
I o Responsible for SIP modifications
I o Provides overall guidance
• o Retains ultimate compliance responsibility
REGIONAL GENERAL PURPOSE PLANNING
AND COORDINATION ORGANIZATION
(e.g., COG or ad hoc task force)
o Lead responsibility for developing AQMP, in
conjunction with all other related governmental
units
o Develops a local consensus on growth and
development projections and policies
o Coordinates implementation activities, possibly
through limited review and veto authority.
Regional Air Pollution
Control District**
Regional Transportation,
Wastewater & Other
Special Purpose Agencies
o Provides technical inputs
to plan
o Participates in selection
of regulatory measures
0 Implements emission controls
o Provide inputs to plan
as required
o Participate in selection
of regulatory measures
o Implement controls in area
of traditional responsibility
*0r other State agency designated by the Governor.
**Jf none present, State APCA performs these functions
Inputs and implementation responsibilities.
Coordination.
Counties, Cities and Other
Local Governments
o Provide inputs on growth pro-
jections and relate matters
o Participate in selection of
regulatory measures
o Integrate air quality considera-
tions into on-going process, land
use planning & decision making
o As required in AQMP, review zonin,
plans, proposed zoning variances
and building permit issuance re-
quests to prevent quality viola-
-------
13
related requirements would be implemented by the appropriate state-
level or metropolitan transportation agency; and zoning or building
permit review and approval would continue as the prerogative of the
city or county involved — all within the context of the AQMP's require-
ments and the assignments of ultimate responsibility for air quality
maintenance to the state air pollution control agency.
In most areas, the COG or Task Force would not itself implement
the plan, but instead would exercise the coordinating role described
above. In other areas, it may be feasible incrementally to strengthen
the existing regional planning and coordination institutions to the
extent of conferring a degree of veto authority over the growth and
development decisions of ther areawide special district agencies and a
more limited review authority over local general purpose governments.
The authority of the Metropolitan Council in Minnesota to veto projects
by special districts which are inconsistent with its comprehensive
plan, and the use of its authority to temporarily delay similar projects
of local governments, are illustrative of this long-term possibility
in other areas.
There would seem to be important advantages to Alternative 3. It
combines maximum retention of decisions over growth and development at
the level of local governments with retention of ultimate state-level
responsibility for assuring compliance with air quality standards. Improve-
ments in existing governmental arrangements essential!for its success build
on recent progress in sub-State regional planning and coordinative mechanisms
-------
14
Being incremental in nature, these improvements should prove to be
more acceptable to local policy makers than alternatives which would
involve the immediate transfer of substantial control over local growth
and development to another level of government. Fortthis reason, too,
this approach may be especially suited for maintaining air quality
in interstate areas.
The major question in this approach is its dependence on the ability
of the COG or; an ad hoc Task Force to perform effectively as an areawide
local planning and coordinative mechanism. If the present weaknesses
of most COGs or ad hoc bodies in this regard cannot be corrected, it
may be necessary to rely on special purpose air pollution control agencies
at the regional or state level to prepare the Air Quality Maintenance
Plan, which would then be implemented either by the State agency or by
local governments.
------- |