• TRANSPORTATION • WILDERNESS •
o
W
LAND USE
and
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
o
G
r
H
C
»
w
LAND UTILIZATION / METAPLANNING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Youth Advisory Board • Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
LAND USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Physical Resources Management
Waste Disposition
Transportation
Urbanization
Agriculture
Wilderness
Recreation
THE SEVEN
MAJOR LAND USES
For additional copies write to:
PUBLIC INQUIRIES
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.G. 20460
-------
LAND USE
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
An Overview For Addressing Environmental Problems
Resulting From Land Use Practices In The United States
REPORT
to the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
This Report was done under the auspices of the Youth Advisory
Board, an advisory body to the Administrator of the U. S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency. The content is advisory in nature
and does not reflect EPA policy.
By the
NATIONAL YOUTH ADVISORY BOARD
-------
Contents
Foreword by Russell E. Train, Administrator vi
I. Introduction 1
II. The Problem 4
III. Public and Private Attitudes Toward Land Use .... 8
IV. Shortcomings of Traditional Land Use Planning ... 1,0
Inadequate Consideration of Environmental Factors . 10
Failure to Take a Comprehensive Approach 11
Inadequate Implementation of Plans 13
V. Rejuvenation of the Planning Process—Metaplanning 14
Impact Assessment 14
Jurisdictional Cooperation 15
Functional Integration 15
Areawide Residuals Managements: EPA's First Step
to Metaplanning 15
VI. Impact and Role of Governmental Programs and
Policies on Land Use 18
The Impact of the Federal Government on the Land. . 18
Role of Public Institutions in Land Use 19
VII. The Rationale for EPA Involvement in Land Use ... 22
Land Use—A Component of Environmental Quality. 22
EPA's Mandate—To Protect and Enhance Environ-
mental Quality 23
EPA's Programs and Policies—Determinants of
Land Use 26
VIII. Limitations on EPA Involvement in Land Use 28
EPA's Enabling Legislation 29
EPA's Structure 7.7 29
EPA's Operational Philosophy 30
IX. Recommendations For EPA 32
Problem 1, Present Attitudes Toward the Land 32
Problem 2, Not Enough Emphasis Placed on Land
Use by EPA 33
Problem 3, Governmental Land Use Impact 33
Problem 4, Shortcomings of Land Use Planning .... 34
Problem 5, Federal Government's de facto Land
Policies . . . - 35
X. Acknowledgements 36
111
-------
FOREWORD
Land use used to be viewed as a problem of limited concern.
Today we realize that land use issues lie at the heart of many of
the most critical environmental decisions facing the Nation,
whether they be air quality implementation plans, decisions on
where to locate large-scale energy facilities, policies for use in our
public lands, how best to manage the national parks and forests,
seasonal home subdivisions in the mountains and along the coasts,
or problems of urban encroachment on valuable natural areas. In
short, land use has developed as one of our most serious environ-
mental problems.
There are a number of reasons for this worth mentioning. First,
land use issues are often very complex and often call for value
judgments related to acceptable degrees of development and ac-
ceptable levels of mitigation of adverse impacts. The effects of
land use decisions are widespread throughout the range of environ-
mental concerns, including pollution, crowding, loss of wildlife and
natural cover, and nearly any other issue you can think of; in short,
land use issues require an extraordinary degree of understanding
of system interrelationships and ecological balance.
Second, the job of institution-building for better land use involves
the difficult task of reforming an existing and complicated struc-
ture of sometimes overlapping often fragmented decision-making
processes. Developing EPA's air and water pollution programs and
other areas of environmental concern was somewhat easier because
there were fewer governmental entities to deal with and less diffusion
of institutional commitment to those programs' goals. When we
look at land use, however, we encounter an often mind-boggling
array of decision bodies, each with its constituency, each with
its interests and requirements and regulations and sense of serf-
preservation. That makes change harder to accomplish.
Finally, the kind of basic reform in our attitudes toward land
use which is required to meet the challenge of development and
preservation pressures in our country today necessitates a reexamina-
tion of some of our most deep-seated values regarding the private
use of land and the public welfare. It is not radical to undertake
this revaluation; indeed it is in the American spirit to constantly
question and reform and renew our institutions to make them more
responsive to changes in public attitudes.
It was in this spirit that the Youth Advisory Board to the En-
vironmental Protection Agency initiated this Land Use Survey.
More than 100 young people participated in the project repre-
senting all ten EPA regions. This publication is the summary of
ten regional studies, 25 specific case histories and a national over-
IV
-------
view of land use. It reflects the thinking of the participants. While
EPA has not formally approved the recommendations put forward
by the Youth Advisory Board, the agency will use this Land Use
Survey as it continues to explore this most serious environmental
problem.
I hope the study will prove to be useful to others who undertake
similar investigations and I am personally grateful to all of those
whose efforts over the last two years made its publication a reality.
RUSSELL E. TRAIN
Administrator
-*
The use of land determines environmental quality.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency commissioned the Na-
tional Youth Advisory Board (NYAB) to undertake a national
land use study in November 1971 pursuant to a recommendation of
the Board. The approval of the recommendation and the assignment
of the task to the Board reflected the Agency's interest in the re-
lationship between land use and environmental protection and its
interest in exploring an holistic approach as a method of solving
environmental problems. Over the next two years more than 100
young people from every part of the country were involved in
research and the preparation of the Regional and the National
reports. The report which follows attempts to take a comprehen-
sive overview of land use issues in the United States and to bring
the responsibilities and goals of the Environmental Protection
Agency into the perspective of land use.
Following Agency approval in November 1971, the NYAB es-
tablished a Land Use Task Force to develop a study outline. In
February 1972 the Task Force met in Denver, Colorado,to finalize
the outline and assign tasks for the next step. The Task Force
continued research during the rest of the winter and drew plans
for Regional Study Teams in their regions. Authorization was
obtained to assign 40 of the Agency's summer interns to the project
under the direction of a Study Team Leader in each Region and
the Study Director at Headquarters in Washington. Task Force
Members continued to participate as a National Board of Direc-
tors and some of the individuals either worked on the Study Teams
or led them.
Upon completion of research investigations at the Regional level,
the study groups submitted Regional Reports accompanied by a
total of 25 case studies to Headquarters. There an Editorial Board
was formed under the leadership of the Study Director. The case
studies ranged from the examination of land use problems in-
herent in urban development in New York, Philadelphia, and
Marion County, Oregon, to analyzing the role of the States in land
use planning and control in New England, the Midwest and the
Rocky Mountain States. Strong emphasis in research was given
to the Federal impact on land use by the Forest Service, Army
Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, Soil Conserva-
tion Service, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
and the National Park Service (policies and practices in the Rocky
Mountain States). Some critical environmental areas and the de-
tailed needs for protecting them were identified in California,
Maine, Georgia, Texas and Louisiana.
The Headquarters research staff, meanwhile, had investigated
the relationship between land use and environmental quality and
-------
examined governmental and private attitudes, policies and pro-
grams which influence those relationships. The Headquarters team
also examined the potential of land use planning and management
as methods for environmental protection and problem solving. The
Editorial Board worked through February 1973 compiling infor-
mation, writing and doing additional research for the National
Report which focused particularly on EPA and recommendations
as to possible involvement in land use for the Agency.
An EPA Land Use Council, with representatives from the major
program offices gave advice to and received progress reports from
the YAB Task Force. An Inter-Agency Land Use Task Force,
with representatives from the Secretary's Offices of several Fed-
eral Departments, was established jointly with the Office of Re-
gional Planning, Department of the Interior, and served a role
similar to that of the EPA Council. Members of both of these
groups served as resource individuals for those conducting the
research.
This paper is an attempt to summarize, in general terms, the
YAB study. It outlines some conclusions and recommendations
in the following areas:
• Public and private attitudes toward land and its use,
• Shortcomings of traditional land use planning,
• Impact and role of governmental programs and policies on
land use, and
• Relationship between land use and environmental quality:
What it means for EPA.
A presentation was made at the end of May to senior agency
officials and a final presentation was made to the Administrator
in November 1973.
As noted on the opening page, this report does not reflect the
views of the Agency. Rather it reflects the best thinking scores
of young people and those whose views influenced them as they
researched and added to the fund of knowledge most had acquired
as active participants for two and often more years in the environ-
mental movement. Their result is an independent assessment of
the situation. The assets which they brought to this effort included
a strong personal commitment, a lively intelligence, and a fresh
perspective. Their shortcomings at the outset were a lack of ex-
perience with the day-to-day operations of government. This soon
changed and the report reflects the experience acquired in dealing
with EPA and other governmental agencies at all levels.
The shortcomings of the past were not reflected in the final
report. Of primary importance to the reader is the focus of the
report. The YAB decided upon the development of an overview.
Lack of perspective on land use issues among those interviewed
initially represented the chief concern of those doing the work.
Quite early in the project, providing that perspective became the
goal of the study.
-------
What follows is in many ways an Introduction to the considera-
tion of the Land Use Issue. The Studies (including the case
studies) formed the underpinning for many of the general state-
ments made. As each Regional Study was conducted for a specific
region, however, no attempt has been made to assemble them be-
tween two covers.
As of the date of publication, several of the Recommendations
have been accepted by the Agency; these include developing
greater awareness among Agency personnel of the land use rami-
fications of their program assignments, the examination of EPA's
legislative authorities for land use implications. Additionally, a
senior level group within the Agency has been formed to consider
the Agency's programs and policies. The Land Use Task Force
has the goal of making proposals for change consonant with land
use considerations. Finally, publication of this Report was itself
a recommendation. Other recommendations are under considera-
tion and may be implemented at some future date.
Each year 130,000 acres of agricultural land are paved over for
highways and airports.
-------
II. The Problem
Land is being developed and used more intensively and exten-
sively than ever before in the history of the United States. Un-
controlled and unregulated use of land is creating irreversible en-
vironmental degradation in many areas. The extent of land-related
problems is demonstrated by the following data:
Land-Related Problems in the United States
• 4 billion tons of sediment are washed into streams annually as
a result of land use or misuse.
• 730,000 acres of agricultural land are annually consumed by
urban sprawl.
• 130,000 acres of rural land are annually paved over for air-
ports and highways.
• 300,000 acres of rural land are consumed annually for reser-
voirs and flood control projects.
• 1,687,288 acres of wildlife habitat have been destroyed by
surface mining.
• 281,116 surface acres of water have been adversely affected
by surface mining.
• 3,187,825 acres of land have been disturbed by surface
mining.
• 17,197,531 acres of wetlands have been destroyed in seven
States alone (45.7 percent of the wetland area of Arkansas,
California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Missouri).
• 32 million tons of fertilizer, 235,000 tons of insecticides, and
90,000 tons of herbicides are applied annually to the land.
• 25 million tons of logging debris are left in forests every year.
• 4.1 million acres of forested wetlands were cleared and
drained for soybean production in the lower Mississippi valley
and southern Florida from 1950-69.
• 4 million acres of right-of-way are traversed by over 300,000
miles of overhead transmission lines.
• 1 billion (approximately) human equivalents of waste are pro-
duced by domestic animals in confined feeding areas.
-------
• 1 million (approximately) acres of forests are clear-cut
annually.
• 4 billion tons of raw materials are consumed annually in U.S.
production, most of which are eventually disposed of as waste
on the land.
• Millions of tons of dredge spoil, industrial sludge, fly ash, and
sewage sludge are land-disposed every year.
Our intensive and consumptive use of the land is expected to
escalate dramatically in the ensuing decades. In the next 27 years,
in fact, all that has been built in the history of this Nation will
have to be duplicated. That is, the equivalent of every school,
pipeline, fire station, powerplant, office building, shopping center,
factory, dam, church, barn, and highway that has been built during
our first 200 years will have to be matched to accommodate the
market demands projected for population levels by the year 2000.
Unless some rigorous thought goes into how and where this expan-
sion is to take place, there will be drastic environmental conse-
quences adversely affecting this Nation and generations yet unborn.
Future Projections for Land Use in the United States
• 19.7 million acres will be consumed by urban sprawl by
2000—an area equivalent to that of the States of New Hamp-
shire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
• 3.5 million acres will be paved over for highways and airports
by 2000.
• 7 million acres will be taken from agricultural use for recre-
ation and wildlife areas by 2000.
• 5 million acres will be taken from agriculture for public
facilities, second-home development, and waste control proj-
ects by 2000.
• 492 power generation stations will be built by 1990, many of
them requiring cooling ponds of 2,000 acres or more.
• 2 million acres of right-of-way will be required by 1990 for
200,000 additional miles of power lines.
The land use problem is compounded by the absence of an
adequate mechanism to deal with it. Unlike air and water pollution,
land pollution and the consumptive use of land cannot be corrected
with present technology. Wilderness cannot be manufactured, nor
can a salt marsh be created, nor can prime agricultural land be
unsubdivided. Assaults on the land therefore can be much more
lasting and serious than assaults on air and water quality.
Some of the factors which call for responsible leadership and
direction are as follows:
-------
Factors Complicating the Land Use Problem
• There is no national land use policy to address the Country's
anticipated growth.
• Although local land controls have failed in the past to permit
giowth consistent with the protection of environmental qual-
ity, there is presently no mechanism to take their place.
• Governmental policies are made, legislation enacted, and
programs funded with little regard as to how they affect land
use and influence development patterns.
• Local land use decisions can have regional or even national
impact on the environment.
• Many land use decisions represent an irretrievable use of the
land resource and create irreversible environmental damage.
• Technological man has the resources and energy available to
radically alter critical environmental areas and unique eo>-
systems which have taken aeons to evolve.
Many land use decisions represent an irretrievable use of the land
resource.
-------
'• ~, A.
Wilderness—a use of land that maintains natural biological and
physical cycles, and provides man with an aesthetic resource.
-------
ill. Public and Private Attitudes
Toward Land and its Use
Fundamental to all of the abuses and misuses of the land is the
attitude with which Americans view land. Traditionally, land has
been viewed as a commodity—something to be bought, sold, and
developed for profit—rather than as a resource to be wisely man-
aged and protected. Use of the land has been a matter of expedi-
ency and the question of propriety has seldom been raised even
over the most abusive land use practices.
This attitude originated in the common-law tradition of land
ownership. The concept was reenforced in early America and is so
deeply woven into the attitudes of this Nation that it still governs
our public and private land use decisions.
Basic Factors Shaping our Land Use Attitudes
THE PIONEER ETHIC, Nature was seen as something to be
challenged and conquered.
THE MYTH OF SUPERABUNDANCE, Land and natural re-
sources were seen as being limitless.
THE LOCKEAN PRINCIPLE OF LAND OWNERSHIP, Man
had the right to do what he wanted with his own land.
Today, we know differently. Man's survival depends upon his
living in harmony with nature. Our resources are not limitless.
Man's use of the land without regard to the health and welfare of
others and to the environment is now being strongly challenged.
Even with these new realizations, however, our actions still reflect
outdated attitudes. More people with more money, enjoying more
mobility and more leisure time, producing and consuming more
each year, represent our individual and collective aspirations. Yet,
these goals require ever-increasing quantities of land. Critical en-
vironmental areas are being lost, scenic areas degraded, coastal
areas developed, and prime agricultural land converted into
shopping centers, housing tracts, and mounds of overburden.
8
-------
Development and intensive use of the land resource will continue
in a haphazard fashion until a national land use policy is estab-
lished. Governmental legislation and regulations, however, cannot
accomplish meaningful goals unless there is a dramatic change in
the attitude with which Americans view the land. Leadership in
this area is necessary by Federal, State, and local government, as
well as the private sector.
A new interpretation of the "taking" clause of the Constitution
would be a significant step in realizing a new land ethic as well as
allowing for more rational land use planning and management. The
Fifth Amendment which states 'private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation,' can be a barrier to pro-
tecting wetlands, coastal areas, prime agricultural land, aquifer re-
charge zones, mountain slopes and wilderness areas from abusive
development. Public ownership to provide parks and open space
and to preserve critical environmental areas and to maintain re-
gional ecological stability must be actively pursued.
Citizens in this country must adopt the attitude that the land
which supports all human life belongs to all mankind—not just
to those few who can afford to purchase little pieces for themselves.
Those who can afford to buy 'pieces of America,' must view owner-
ship as a trust for proper use of the land. Those rights should not
permit serious degradation of environmental quality.
Local land use decisions frequently have an areawide, State, or
even national impact on the environment and our natural resources.
It is time to change some of the outdated attitudes and legal con-
cepts which govern our land use decision making and prevent
public and private institutions from effectively dealing with land
use problems. The new land ethic must stress nonconsumptive use
of land and encourage greater individual involvement in the land
use planning process. In short, land must be viewed as a valuable
resource to be wisely managed and protected rather than a com-
modity to be carelessly exploited and misused.
-------
IV. Shortcomings of Land Use Planning
Over the past 50 years, land-related problems resulting from
urban growth and industrial expansion have been dealt with
through the planning process. At present several bills before the
Congress stress this approach. The bill most likely to receive
Congressional approval, S. 268, Land Use Policy and Planning
Assistance Act, has recently been passed by the Senate. This bill
requires the States to:
. . . develop and implement State land use programs to co-
ordinate Federal programs and policies which have a land use
impact, to coordinate planning and management of Federal
lands and planning and management of adajcent non-Federal
lands . . .
The Task Force strongly supports the enactment of this legis-
lation. It will alleviate some of the problems that land use planning
has faced and should reduce duplication and contradiction of those
Federal programs implemented by the States.
In the past land use planning and public policy planning have
frequently been ineffective in preventing land misuse or protecting
environmental quality. These shortcomings stem from three basic
reasons:
• Inadequate consideration of the natural environment in the
planning process.
• Failure to take a comprehensive approach.
• Inadequate implementation of plans.
Inadequate Consideration of Environmental Factors in the
Planning Process
Traditional land use planning has taken the zoning approach.
Various urban uses—residential, industrial, and commercial—are
isolated from each other to reduce nuisances and to protect human
health, safety, and welfare. Although there are examples of
planning decisions' being based on environmental criteria, for the
most part, protection of environmental quality and finite resources
has not been fundamental to the planning process. Ignoring physi-
cal and ecological factors has resulted in property damage and
destruction of environmental quality.
10
-------
Problems Arising From Ignoring Environmental Factors
• Untreated sewage being discharged into receiving waters dur-
ing periods of heavy rainfall because of combined sewers.
• Property loss from development on flood plains.
• Siltation of reservoirs from poor soil managament practices.
• Pollution and depletion of groundwater supplies from devel-
opment on aquifers and their recharge zones.
• Increase in frequency and severity of floods from extensive
development in watershed areas, clear-cutting practices and
channelization programs.
• Destruction of wetlands by the disposal of solid wastes in
land fills.
• Loss of agricultural land to urban sprawl.
• Air pollution resulting from poorly designed urban trans-
portation systems.
• Property damage from building in active geologic zones.
• Destruction of the natural environment by recreational devel-
opments.
Failure to Take a Comprehensive Approach
The second shortcoming of the planning process is its single-
purpose nature. The object of single-purpose planning, for such
things as highways, sewers, airports and water supply systems, is
primarily to get the job done for the single purpose. Highways, for
example, are planned to facilitate movement from urban center to
urban center. Ample consideration is not always given to the dis-
location of people, the disruption of the natural environmental, and
the stimulus to secondary development.
Although the goal of planning is usually to enhance the quality
of life, it is frequently not realized. The lack of coordination, the
absence of analyzing secondary impacts, and the failure to recognize
the synergisms involved has led to degradation of the human en-
vironment. Table A briefly outlines some of the problems resulting
from single-purpose planning.
11
-------
TABLE A
Problems Arising from Single-Purpose Planning
Single Purpose of Plan Resulting Problems
Highway Transportation Primary* ..
• Air pollution
• Noise pollution
• Congestion
Secondary**
• Induced growth, urban sprawl,
strip development, leap-frog-
ging
• Restriction of transportation
alternatives
• Socio-cultural impacts
• Relocation of people
Water Resource Management Secondary
• Environmental impacts, loss of
aesthetic values
• Ecological costs, control of nat-
ural waterways, loss of wildlife
habitat
• Stimulated development around
reservoirs
• Water quality problems associ-
ated with impoundments due to
increased retention time
Airport Placement Primary
• Air pollution
• Noise pollution
• Accidents and injury
Secondary
• Development pressures, indus-
try, housing
• Municipal wastes
• Industrial wastes
Sewage Treatment Facilities Primary
• Water quality problems associa-
ated with impoundments due to
• Problems of sewage sludge dis-
posal
• Aesthetic problems—odor
Secondary
• Determinant of urban growth,
urban sprawl accompanied by
air and noise pollution, conges-
tion, placement of key facilities
• Inflation of land values, encour-
aging farmers to sell or sub-
divide their land
• Factor in rezoning or upzoning
for higher densities
* Primary, those problems that are of immediate environmental concern—related
to health and safety.
** Secondary, those probems which have a general environmental impact—related
to the consumptive use of the land or the deterioration of ecological stability.
12
-------
Failure To Have Plans Adequately Implemented
The third basic limitation of the current land use planning
process is the absence of adequate implementation of plans. All too
frequently, local communities have considered it necessary to up-
zone, grant exceptions, and yield to outside pressures to alter well-
intended plans.
Reasons for Implementation Failures
• Lack of understanding of the need for land use planning; and
how it relates to community. State and national goals.
• Economic pressures for development, combined with a land-
based tax structure.
• Lack of centralized planning and implementation authorities.
Unless land use planning is a comprehensive effort, including
environmental as well as economic and social considerations, it will
become just another form of single-purpose planning, replete with
all its inherent shortcomings.
''
:a»
Agricultural land is being lost at a rate of 730,000 acres annually
to urban sprawl.
13
-------
V. Rejuvenation of the
Planning Process
To eliminate some of the problems inherent in the traditional
approach to land use planning, the Task Force recommends the
initiation of metaplanning.* Metaplanning represents planning at
a level of complexity beyond that which has, to date, been referred
to as "comprehensive" planning. Metaplanning is quality-of-life
planning. It is an attempt to recognize and to deal with the fact that
the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Although the expertise does not yet exist that would permit
complete implementation of metaplanning, it is important that
steps be taken that will lead to eventual implementation of this
process. Action should be taken in the three following areas:
• Impact assessment.
• Jurisdictional cooperation.
• Functional integration.
Impact Assessment
The first of the basic approaches of metaplanning, impact
assessment, is defined as the ability to predict and identify the
synergisms of major programs, policies, and practices of the public
and private sectors on the environment as well as on the society and
economy. This entails identifying and dealing with all significant
casual factors at the macroscopic level. Regarding land use planning
and the environment, it requires establishing the land carrying
capacity, and then restricting use so that it will not exceed that
natural capacity.
There is a need to establish an environmental impact assessment
process at the State and local level similar to the environmental
impact statement process established at the Federal level by the
National Environmental Policy Act. The YAB Land Use Task
Force calls for such a mechanism to be established.
*Meta- meaing "a later, or more highly organized or more specialized
form of; more comprehensive." The term metaplanning is being used in
place of "true comprehensive planning" because that term has been mis-
applied too frequently in the past.
14
-------
Jurisdictional Cooperation
Metaplanning requires a hierarchal arrangement of local, area-
wide, State, and Federal planning functions. Centralized planning
authorities with implementation abilities are required to address
the greater-than-local impact of local decisions, and the prob-
lems of duplication. The planning process should be initiated at
the local level, with public participation, and continue up through
the Federal level, where national goals and priorities could be
established.
Functional Integration
An interdisciplinary approach to planning such development
determinants as transportation, infrastructure, sewers, and housing
tracts may prevent haphazard development from taking place. The
Connecticut plan for multi-functional approaches to air, water,
solid waste, and land use programs exemplifies interdisciplinary
planning.
Through implementation of metaplanning and conscious manip-
ulation of land use determinants, it is conceivable that develop-
mental patterns can be upgraded, and the type and intensity of
land use predetermined. Concurrently, the environmental impact
of this Country's growth and development could be minimized.
This process must begin by evaluating the impact of all our activi-
ties and actions on land use.
Areawide Residuals Management: EPA's First Step to
Metaplanning
Pollution abatement is, at best, after-the-fact control of environ-
mental contamination. In stressing this abatement approach, the
Environmental Protection Agency has been dealing with environ-
mental problems in a segmented manner, by dividing them into
separate categories: air, water, solid waste, radiation, pesticides,
and noise. The result has been to trade one pollution problem for
another, with the ultimate recipient being the land. Wastes formerly
going up the stack or into the water is now being relegated to the
land.
Air quality control, for example, has been found to create
numerous other environmental problems. Specifics cited by the
study group in Region X (Pacific Northwest) include:
• Restrictions on the burning of slash have greatly increased the
danger of forest fires.
• Prevention of the dumping of pulp mill sulfite wastes has
created severe air pollution and solid waste disposal problems.
• A ban on the burning of grain stubble has resulted in an in-
creased rodent population by greatly increasing available food.
15
-------
The YAB Task Force recommends that an areawide residuals
(waste) management program be undertaken that would take into
account:
• The pollution trade off problem now creating problems for
maintaining land quality.
• The need for pollution prevention (through land use planning
and management) as well as pollution abatement techniques.
• The need for impacts of pollution control and land use
determinants to be coordinated at the areawide or regional
level.
The areawide residuals management process should be estab-
lished by the States and provide integrated waste (residuals) man-
agement for all relevant aspects of air, water, solid waste, pesticide,
radiation and toxic substance problems. This approach should
conform to the State-wide land use planning process.
Existing authorities within EPA programs could establish on-
going programs with the States almost immediately. Section 208
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
calls for the establishment of "areawide waste treatment manage-
ment agencies" and provides the funds necessary to set up the
process. Three hundred million dollars is authorized over the next
three fiscal years for this, nearly twice the annual total appropriated
for HUD 701 Comprehensive Planning Programs, and about equal
to that called for in the Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance
Act. The requirements of Section 110 of the Clean Air Act of 1970
also could tie into this management process. The Act authorizes
the States to establish land use controls where necessary to meet
national ambient air quality standards. This process must be com-
pleted on an areawide basis in the States with more than one air
quality control region. Moreover, under the complex source regu-
lations, the states must also assess the air quality impact of any new
facilities such as airports, shopping centers, and sports stadia, which
are likely to generate significant automotive traffic. And under the
non-degradation clause, the States must identify and prepare to
protect areas where growth and development could result in viola-
tion of Federal air standards during the next 10 years. Clearly this
would be completed at the metropolitan or areawide level. Other
Federal activities are focused at the areawide level. Most notable
are HUD's 701 Comprehensive Planning Program, the old
FWPCA water basin planning, OMB's Executive Order A-95
clearinghouse review process, HEW's Regional Health Planning
Program, to name the more obvious.
16
-------
Unique environmental areas must be preserved for future
generations.
17
-------
VI. Impact and Role of Governmental
Programs and Policies on Land Use
Governmental influence on and involvement in land use is far
reaching. Two areas of discussion focus on this fact:
• The impact of the Federal government on land use
• The role of public institutions in land use.
The Impact of the Federal Government on land use
The policies and practices of government at all levels have a
decisive impact on how land is planned for and ultimately used.
Local governments' use of zoning and land taxing authority, and
State agencies' planning and handling of funds, have sizable im-
pacts on land use. The Federal Government in most cases, how-
ever, is the dominant influence in altering land uses and shaping
patterns of development in the United States.
The Federal influence on land use is immense. This report con-
cludes, first, that the extent of that impact is phenomenal; and,
second, that the lack of any explicit policy to address that impact
results in contradiction and duplication which create profligate
land consumption and environmental degradation. This Federal
influence is longstanding; Congressional action impacting land
dates back over 100 years.
Some Key Federal Laws Impacting Land Use
The 1862 Homestead Act
The 1872 Mining Act
The 1920 Mineral Leasing Act
The 1934 Taylor Grazing Act
The 1960 Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act
18
-------
The list of agencies impacting land use ranges from the Internal
Revenue Service to the Bureau of Land Management. It almost
defies any sort of adequate comprehensive analysis. The activities
of these agencies range from building infrastructure such as high-
ways, sewers, water projects, and airports to setting aside land in
soil bank programs. They have provided an incentive for land
consumption by stimulating development, investment, and specula-
tion.
Examples of Federal Activities Affecting Land Use
Oil depletion allowance
Capital gains taxes
Tax incentives on transportation of raw materials
Government flood insurance
Set-aside and soil bank programs
Sewer and treatment plant construction
Highway construction financed by the Highway Trust Fund
Clear-cutting practices of the Forest Service
Stream channelization by the Army Corps of Engineers and
the Soil Conservation Service
Waste reclamation projects
Powerplant siting
Placement of refineries
Agricultural grazing rights
Mineral extraction rights
Urban renewal and new towns
Comprehensive planning grants
Establishment and enforcement of air and water quality
standards
Airport siting
Loan programs and interest rates
Placement of Federal facilities
Defense expenditures
Land reclamation projects
The Role of Public Institutions in Land Use
Although instituted as one of the constitutional powers reserved
to the States, land use control has been gradually delegated to local
governments to promote local control over rapidly expanding
communities. The Federal Government has maintained a laissez-
faire attitude toward land use regulation.
Local Government
Exclusively local control, usually through zoning, has created
problems since its inception. Some of these are enumerated below:
19
-------
• "Greater-than-local" impact problems are not addressed.
• Little consideration has been given to environmental amenities
and continuation of ecological systems.
• Thousands of communities have "up-zoned" to expand local
tax revenues.
• Available planning funds are usually insufficient at the local
level.
• There is a shortage of land management skills.
• Influence of speculators, utilities, and developers are brought
to bear on local officials.
• Jurisdictional disputes frustrate the implementation of plans.
• Zoning has been used to discriminate against minorities and
the poor.
• Aesthetics and ecological stability for the regional or national
benefit are often ignored.
State Government
Recently, some States have reasserted their preeminence over
some elements of land use management, planning, and control.
The persistence of problems resulting from local control have led
some States to delegate powers to regional authorities as exten-
sions of their government, while others have retained or expanded
State authorities. Some examples are given below:
• Hawaii—1961. A Land Use Commission was created and
assigned the task of dividing the State into agricultural, urban,
rural, and conservation districts with the main purpose being
to prevent the encroachment of urban development into agri-
cultural areas.
• California—1965. Bay Area Conservation and Development
Commission established to protect San Francisco Bay—1972.
Coastal Zone Conservation Act establishing Regional
Planning Agencies for development, planning, and implemen-
tation.
• New Jersey—1969. Hackensack Meadowland Development
Commission established and authorized to issue bonds, levy
assessments, collect fees, buy land, exercise eminent domain,
and have final authority over planning and land use control
in 21,000 acres of wetlands.
• Vermont—1970. The Environmental Control Law estab-
lished that permits were required from the State for (1) sub-
divisions of more than 10 acres; (2) commercial and indus-
trial development of substantial size; and (3) development
above the elevation of 2,500 feet.
• Maine—1970. The State can institute control of developments
over 20 acres or 60,000 square feet of industrial floor space.
• New York—1971. The Adirondack Park Agency established
to submit a land use and development plan for the Adirondack
mountains. Agricultural districts also established in that State
to protect agricultural land from development.
20
-------
• Florida, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Connecticut and other
States have recently assumed greater responsibility for land
use control.
Federal Government
Because the authority for land use has traditionally rested with
the States and localities, the Federal role is somewhat ambigious.
Even specialists within the Federal Government are not fully cog-
nizant of who has what authority over land use. Federal land use
powers, direct or indirect, are widely dispersed among the Depart-
ments of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and In-
terior, and the Environmental Protection Agency, to name but a
few.
As a result of this dispersion, Federal program administrators—
in EPA as well as in other agencies—are prone to ignore the land
impact of their programs relative to those other matters for which
Federal authority is well denned. Consequently, there has been
no coherent policy at the Federal level to address its massive land
impact.
A national policy must be established to fill the void between the
Federal Government's land impact and its de facto role. A national
perspective is also needed on issues of national significance, such as
those related to the development of energy resources.
States and localities alone cannot always be expected to make
the most appropriate choices. They cannot adequately assess na-
tional goals nor determine the aspirations of the American society.
A national perspective is also necessary to insure that a national
land use policy is consistent with national policies for growth,
energy, and population; all of which must be developed simultane-
ously if any is to be functional. Perhaps the Domestic Council,
with an appropriate staff, or a new Department of Long Term
Planning (Metaplanning) and Policy Evaluation could handle the
formidable but ineluctable task.
21
-------
VII. The Rationale for EPA Involment
in Land Use
There are three basic reasons for EPA to become more actively
involved in land use considerations:
• Land use is an essential component of environmental quality.
• EPA's mandate is to protect and enhance environmental
quality.
• EPA's programs and policies affect land use and development
patterns.
Land Use—A Component of Environmental Quality
Environmental quality is composed of three interdependent parts
•—air quality, water quality, and land quality. This realization is
evident in the fact that we' live at the land/air/water interface.
What constitutes a land use also constitutes an air use. Our de-
pendence on water, and the fact that most of the population in this
country is located on the coasts or along major waterways, illus-
trates the close relationship between land use and water use. Any
attempt to protect environmental quality, therefore, must consist
of equal consideration of land, water, and air uses.
Mainlining high land quality need not be restrictive or neces-
sarily a limitation of individual rights. It requires establishing the
natural land carrying capacity and planning for development to be
consistent with that capacity. Various land uses should be evaluated
in terms of their impact on health and safety, ecological stability
and consumptive use of the resource. Only through this analysis
will it be feasible to take an holistic approach to protecting environ-
mental quality.
The Task Force has found land use to be almost synonymous
with environmental quality. Most of the environmental problems
facing EPA in fact, result from the use or misuse of the land
resource. Table B gives a few examples.
22
-------
TABLE B
Land Uses Resulting in Environmental Problems
Land practice or use
Clear-cutting
Strip mining
Agriculture
Highways and airports
Powerplants
Urban sprawl
Waste disposal
Environmental problem
Erosion, Sedimentation, Nutrient
runoff, Loss of wildlife habitat, De-
struction of aesthetic values, Disrup-
tion of watersheds, Loss of recrea-
tional values.
Acid mine drainage, Sedimentation,
Loss of farmland, Aesthetic prob-
lems, Damage to wildlife and fish
habitat.
Feed lot and nutrient runoff, Eutro-
phication, Pesticides runoff, Erosion,
Soil compaction, Animal waste dis-
posal, Predator control, Salinity of
irrigation return flow, Induced
changes in vegetation cover, Disrup-
tion of ecological stability.
Air pollution, Sedimentation, Sec-
ondary development, Noise pollution,
Destruction of eco|ogical habitats,
Litter, Land disruption, High energy
consumption with their use.
Aesthetic problems from transmis-
sion lines, Thermal discharges, Air
pollution, Disposition of radioactive
wastes.
Loss of agricultural land, Air pollu-
tion, Noise pollution, Street runoff,
Paving over aquifer recharge zones,
Disruption of ecological stability,
Development on flood plains, Water
pollution.
Landfill of marshes and wildlife hab-
itat, Open burning of slash, garbage,
and sewage sludge resulting in air
pollution, Noise problems with trash
collection.
EPA's Mandate—To Protect and Enhance Environmental Quality
The Presidential Message accompanying the Reorganization
Plan establishing the Environmental Protection Agency stated:
Responsibility for anti-pollution and related programs
is now fragmented among several departments and
agencies, thus weakening our overall Federal effort. Air
pollution, water pollution, and solid wastes are differ-
ent forms of the same problem, and it becomes increas-
ingly evident that broad systems approaches are going
to be needed to bring our pollution problems under
control. (Emphasis added.)
23
-------
The "failure to perceive the environment as a totality and to
understand and recognize the fundamental interdependence of all
its parts, including man himself," was cited as a basic cause of
environmental degradation. (Emphasis added.)
It is apparent that the intent of the President and Congress was
to develop comprehensive approaches to environmental problems.
Consistent with this intent, the YAB Land Use Task Force main-
tains that any comprehensive approach to pollution abatement
requires proper land use planning and management.
EPA efforts to meet its mandate in the past, have focused on
developing effective means of protecting human health and safety.
TABLE C
Pollution Abatement Requiring Land Use Controls91'
Problem
Deterioration of Water Quality
Eutrophication
Sedimentation
Source
—Mining operations (acid mine
drainage)
—Feed lot runoff
—Agricultural chemical runoff (herb-
icides, pesticides, and fertilizers)
—Dredge spoil disposal
—Sewage sludge disposal
—Shoreline development
—Nutrient runoff (clear-cutting and
agriculture)
—Construction of reservoirs (in-
creased retention time)
—Shoreline development
—Soil erosion (agricultural practices)
—Erosion (highway and other con-
struction; clear-cutting)
—Stream channelization
Contamination of ground water —Deep-well disposal
—Paving of aquifer recharge zones
—Septic tanks and leach fields
—Leaching from landfills
Noise pollution —Airports
—Highways
—Heavy industry
Air Pollution —Airborne soil (from agricultural
practices)
—Urban complex sources (urban
sprawl, leap-frogging, strip devel-
opment)
—Powerplant and other facilities
siting
—Highway placement and design
—Burning of wastes (agricultural
stubble and slash; garbage)
—Heavy industry (refinery siting)
* These problems are directly related to EPA's air, water and noise pollution abate-
ment mandates.
24
-------
These efforts have revolved around technological approaches to
controlling major sources of air and water pollution. Although
these has been moderate success with this abatement, "clean-up"
approach, there are inherent limitations. The control of non-point
source problems, such as sedimentation, agricultural run-off and
automobile emissions, and the impact of trading on media pollu-
tion problem for another are compelling reasons for EPA to take
an holistic approach to environmental protection.
Even a narrow interpretation of EPA's role, as "strictly a pollu-
tion abatement" agency, however, reauires it to become involved
in land use. Several examples of pollution problems that cannot be
abated without land use planning and management are listed in
Table C and D.
TABLE D
Environmental Protection Requiring Land Use Controls*
Problem Source
Destruction of ecological stability —Drainage of wetlands
—Grazing practices
—Landfilling of salt marshes and
other wetlands
—Land disposal of wastes (e.g., fly
ash dredge spoil, sewage sludge)
—Development on flood plains
—Clear cutting
—Soil depletion (by intensive use of
chemicals in agriculture)
—Stream channelization
—Predator, insect, and weed control
—Mon9crop agriculture
—Persistent environmental toxins
Loss of aesthetic values —Urban sprawl (strip and leapfrog
development)
—Development in the coastal zone
—Mineral extraction
—Claar cutting
—Power transmission lines
—Billboards
—Recreational development
—Transportation development
—Second home development
* These problems are among those in which EPA must become involved in order to
take an holistic approach to environmental protection.
Such problems cannot be dealt with effectively in the absence of
land use controls and implementation of sound environmental
planning. Without ample consideration of land use, it will be con-
siderably more difficult, if not impossible, for EPA to discharge
its responsibilities.
25
-------
EPA's Program and Policies—Determinants of Land Use
EPA should become more involved in land use considerations
because its programs and policies influence land use patterns, which
in turn affect environmental quality. Efforts to control media
pollution have resulted in trading off one pollution problem for
another, with land being the ultimate recipient of waste. Several
environmental policies and decisions listed below indicate there
will be a dramatic increase in the disposal of waste on the land:
Environmental Policies to Curtail Media (Air and Water)
Pollution (Resulting in land disposition of wastes)
• Promulgation and strict enforcement of air and water quality
standards.
• The 1985 "no discharge" goal.
• Restrictions on ocean dumping.
• Protection of groundwater.
• Restriction of open burning.
• Restrictions on aquatic disposal of dredge spoil.
Reduction of air pollution by installation of wet scrubbers and
electrostatic precipitators creates a sludge and fly-ash disposal
problem on the land or in the water. Treatment plants can purify
sewage, but must later dispose of the residual sludge on the land or
in the ocean. Unused pesticides and toxic materials once dumped
in rivers and streams are now disposed of on the land. Municipal
solid waste previously incinerated is now disposed of in landfills.
Timber slash once burned now constitutes a major solid waste
problem in our forests.
By failing to take a systems approach to finding solutions, and
by not utilizing land use planning and management as an environ-
mental protection device, EPA will continue to trade one pollution
problem for another. Although the quality of one medium may be
improved, the impact of this improvement on other media should
be evaluated if EPA is to meet its mandate. In discussing trade-offs,
land is also considered a medium.
In addition to the land impact and trade-off problems of EPA's
policies, the Agency has a substantial impact on development in
local communities. The prime source of this impact is the funding
of sewage treatment plants. The construction of new plants with
capacities greater than actual needs, and the expansion of existing
facilities can be significant growth stimulants. The relationship of
sewer construction to growth patterns is summarized as follows:
26
-------
Sewers and their Relation to Sprawl
• The existence or feasibility of sewage and water treatment
has frequently been the primary criterion by which local
governments have decided whether an area should be rezoned
for development, or whether a subdivision should be per-
mitted.
• Because sewerage systems are generally financed through user
charges, connection fees, and tax levies; the service area is
made as large as possible to gain the greatest amount of
revenue.
• The mere existence of sewer lines enhances the attractiveness
of land for development.
• Land values inflated by the development potential, heightened
by sewerage installation encourages farmers to sell or develop
their land. Increased tax rates in serviced areas compounds
this encouragement.
• The primary objective of local, State, and Federal officials
is to provide adequate sewerage at the least possible cost.
Regional systems have usually been the preferred means of
accomplishing this. With the absence of land use controls,
regional interceptors connecting several communities encour-
age development throughout the entire region.
The construction grant program is impacting land use. The
resulting development leads to other environmental problems, such
as; air pollution, solid waste generation, increased public service
requirements, etc. This is only one example of secondary impacts
of an EPA program which may have undesirable long-range envi-
ronmental impacts. Other examples include areawide waste treat-
ment planning, location considerations in State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) for complex sources and new point sources, the estab-
lishment of ambient air quality standards and the position taken on
solid waste treatment (disposition vs recycling).
The YAB Task Force feels that EPA could minimize the land
impacts and its media pollution trade-off problems by first ana-
lyzing how its programs, standards, regulations, and policies affect
land use, and then taking the steps necessary to alleviate the ad-
verse land impacts. One of the first steps, as previously mentioned,
could be the establishment of an areawide residuals management
process.
27
-------
VIII. Limitations on EPA Involvement
in the Land Use Issue
Considering EPA's mandate to protect and enhance the environ-
ment and the influence that the use of land has on meeting that
mandate, one might wonder why EPA does not have explicit land
use planning and control authorities. This is due in part to the
Federal attitude of laissez-faire toward land use regulation based
on the "reservation of powers" clause of the Constitution. This
attitude, combined with a general indifference to, and, in fact,
ignorance of, the relationship between land use and environmental
quality is reflected in the statutory authorities of EPA. It should
be realized, however, that only recently has there been any wide-
spread public concern over environmental degradation.
While EPA has little explicit authority for land use control,
many provisions in its various enabling statutes require land use
planning and management for their successful implementation. This
implicit authority in the past has been used on a limited basis. To
date, EPA involvement in the land use issue has centered around:
• Letting contracts to identify and quantify relationships be-
tween land use and environmental quality.
• Establishing mandated guidelines and regulations, particularly
in the area of areawide waste management planning (Sec.
208 FWPCA) and maintenance of air quality standards (Sec.
110, Clean Air Act).
• New responsibilities for: regulation of complex sources, new
point sources; the maintenance of air quality standards; water
resource and waste water treatment planning; control over
the siting of major facilities and nonpoint sources.
More active involvement in the land use issue and attempts to
take an holistic approach to environment problems, however, have
been restricted by:
• EPA's Enabling Legislation
• EPA's Organizational Structure
• EPA's Operating Philosophy
28
-------
EPA's Enabling Legislation
The absence of a specific organic act establishing EPA has
prevented the Agency from taking an holistic approach to meeting
its mandate. This factor, combined with the Federal laissez-faire
attitude, has minimized the Agency's willingness to include land
use considerations in its day-to-day activities. Furthermore, except
for amendments—the enabling legislation antedates the Agency,
falls within the jurisdiction of several Committees of the Congress,
and is usually single-purpose in nature. EPA's enabling authorities
are largely contained in the following Acts:
The Clean Air Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
The Resource Recovery Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
With the notable exception of NEPA, these authorities stress the
media approach to pollution abatement rather than an intermedia
approach to pollution prevention. These laws were drawn up by
several Committees of the Congress, each operating under a differ-
ent system of priorities; and indicate little or no consideration of
their impact on each other. Furthermore, some of these Acts were
originally enacted for implementation by five different agencies,
each with its specific mandate, objectives, and goals. The organi-
zational structure of the Agency reflects those Acts which were in
existence when EPA was established in December of 1970.
EPA's Structure
Independent program responsibility for air, water, solid waste
management, pesticides, radiation, and, more recently, noise con-
trol was established. The main Agency functions were also formu-
lated—standards setting, enforcement, research, monitoring, and
grant allocation. The activities of each of the program offices are
based on a specific enabling authority. The functional offices draw
their authority from the totality of the enabling legislation.
Because air, water, and land are interdependent parts of the
ecosystem, any attempt to protect and enhance environmental
quality requires equal attention to all three parts with coordination
among them. The Task Force believes that EPA must undertake
administrative realignment to permit land use considerations to be
adequately addressed in the near future if land quality is to receive
equal attention with air and water quality. Moreover, the YAB
Land Use Task Force sees a need for an organic act for EPA in
the long run, which Act would include authority for land use
responsibilities.
29
-------
EPA's Operating Philosophy
As previously mentioned, some of the Agency's enabling legisla-
tion includes implicit authority for land use involvement. Table E
lists those sections of the Agency's enabling Acts containing such
authorities.
TABLE E
Implicit Land Use Authorities
Act
Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments
of 1972
Section Subject
104 Development of new control
methods
105 Research and Development
grants
107 Mine Water Pollution
201 Sewage Waste Management
204 Limitation on sewage service
208 Areawide waste treatment
management
209 River basin plans
302 Special standard
303 Water quality standards and
implementation plans
305 Water quality inventory
314 Clean lakes
403 Ocean dumping
404 Dredge and fill material permits
405 Sewage sludge disposal
110 Land use transportation controls
309 Federal impact
3 Registering products
13 Seizure because of adverse
environmental effects
3253 Research and demonstration
3254(a) Planning grants
3254(b) Demonstration grants
3254(c) Waste recovery
3254(e) Federal agencies
4 Federal agency jurisdiction
4(c)(l) Coordinate Federal programs
4(c)(2) Federal agencies' consultation
with Administrator
5(a)(l) Health and welfare criteria
5(a)(2) Noise standards
7 Airport and aircraft noise
14 Research
It should be emphasized that these authorities are restricted to
the medium to which the specific Act is directed. The Clean Air
Act, for example, provides land use and transportation controls
as they relate to air quality, rather than environmental quality in
general. Additionally, because these authorities are hidden in
different sections of the various bills, many EPA decision makers
have been reluctant to assume initiative in the land use area. The
Clean Air Act of 1970
Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide and Rodenticide Con-
trol Act of 1972
Solid Waste Disposal
Noise Control Act of 1972
30
-------
absence of organic legislation, including explicit land use authori-
ties, has given rise to the general Agency attitude of: "Let's clean
up the air and the water before we move into new areas."
Perhaps the chief deterrent to EPA's assuming more leadership
in using land use controls for environmental protection rests with
the fact that the major legislative proposals for a national land use
policy have assigned the "lead agency" position to the Department
of the Interior. This action has made it more palatable for EPA
to assume the role of "strictly a pollution abatement" agency.
The Task Force maintains that it will be extremely difficult, to
maintain even that role without aggressive attention to land use
management and controls. The legal authorities listed in Table
E are those which EPA should utilize to become more actively
involved in land use considerations. Section 110 of the Clean Air
Act and Section 208 of FWPCA are two sections in particular
that authorize EPA's involvement in land use (see: Areawide
Residuals Management: EPA's first step to Metaplanning).
The environment cannot be protected without proper planning
and land use controls.
31
-------
IX. Recommendations for EPA
It should be noted that the following are only general recom-
mendations. Recommendations pertaining to individual EPA pro-
grams are contained in the EPA Section of the National report.
Problem 1
Present attitudes toward land and its use governs the land use
decision-making process and creates severe environmental reper-
cussions with impinge upon EPA's ability to meet its mandate.
Recommendation 1:
EPA should develop a program to encourage awareness
within the Agency of:
• Land use/environmental quality relationships
• The Agency's existing land use authorities
• The impact of Agency programs and policies on land use.
Method for Implementation:
a. Refine, update and distribute YAB Land Use Report
b. Give the YAB audio-video presentation at Headquarters
and the Regions.
Recommendation 2:
EPA should sensitize the general public through educational
programs of the importance of developing a new land ethic.
Method for Implementation:
a. Publish a brochure on Land Use and Environmental
Quality.
b. Have YAB audio-video presentation made into a film for
general distribution.
c. Establish an Environmental Extension Service (EES) pat-
terned after the Agricultral Extension Service to dissemi-
nate literature and provide technical assistance to civic
groups, environmental organizations, planning agencies
and the academic community.
32
-------
Problem 2
EPA has not placed enough emphasis on land use, considering
that land use is an essential component of environmental quality
and EPA's mandate is to protect and enhance environmental
quality.
Recommendation:
EPA should become more actively involved with land use con-
siderations and deal in an holistic manner with environmental
problems.
Method for Implementation:
a. An office or some centralized land use authority should be
established within EPA to consolidate and coordinate
efforts in the following areas:
1. Evaluate and make recommendations to assist in min-
imizing EPA's adverse land use impact.
2. Contribute to the formulation of a National Land Use
Policy.
3. Interface with other Federal agencies involved with
land use decision making.
4. Research and identify control techniques for those
environmental problems that cannot be abated through
conventional methods.
5. Identify new approaches to deal with media trade-off
problems.
6. Conduct land use related research (property tax re-
form, environmental land trusts, etc.).
b. Seek organic legislation—an omnibus act that would en-
able EPA to take an holistic approach to resolving exist-
ing environmental problems and prevent degradation from
occurring in the future.
Problem 3
There are numerous Federal, State and local program policies
that have conflicting and adverse impacts on land use and environ-
mental quality.
Recommendation:
EPA should become more actively involved in working with
other governmental agencies at all levels, as well as with pro-
fessional organizations concerned with land use planning and
management, in pointing out the relationship between land use
and environmental quality.
33
-------
Method for Implementation:
a. EPA should encourage the use of areawide residuals man-
agement and seek to have land use planning and manage-
ment initiated as a device to prevent pollution at the local
level.
b. EPA should lend its expertise to the development of en-
vironmentally sound planning processes at the state level.
This should include encouraging the States to initiate the
metaplanning concept by centralizing all State planning
functions and have them conform to the land use planning
process called for in the Land Use Policy and Planning
Assistance Act, S. 268.
c. At the Federal Level, EPA should seek to establish its
leadership (not necessarily "the lead") in the area of land
use. Agency land use expertise should be developed in
order to incorporate land use impact evaluation into the
Environmental Impact Statement review process. Because
many Federal programs are not reviewed through the en-
vironmental impact statement process, it is necessary for
EPA to establish active working relationships with key
agencies whose programs have significant impact on land
use.
d. EPA should push for the adoption of an environmental
assessment process at the State and local level.
Problem 4
Land use planning and public policy planning have frequently
been ineffective from the standpoint of preventing land misuse or
protecting environmental quality.
Recommendation:
Strive for the development and implementation of metaplan-
ning at all levels of government.
Method for Implementation:
a. Evaluate the land impact of EPA activities and seek to re-
duce adverse impacts.
b. Undertake the necessary research to implement metaplan-
ning. It is necessary to improve the understanding of land
use/environmental quality relationships if the metaplan-
ning approach is to be successfully implemented. Infor-
mation should be geared to:
1. Making sound environmental decisions in the planning
process.
2. Identifying and quantifying environmental trade-ofls.
3. Providing a data base which would improve ability to
identify the actions and activities involved in land use.
A national census of land ownership is an important
first step.
34
-------
c. Work closely with the State planning agencies responsible
for developing the land use planning programs required
by the Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act that
recently passed the Senate.
Problem 5
Although the Federal Government in most cases is the dominant
influence in altering land use and shaping patterns of development,
there is no coherent national land use policy to address this impact.
Recommendation
A national policy should be developed to fill the void be-
tween the Federal Government's land impact and its de facto
role.
Method for Implementation:
a. EPA should help formulate a national land use policy.
b. The Administrator should suggest to the President that
the Domestic Council with an appropriate staff, or a new
Department of Long Term Planning (Metaplanning) and
Policy Evaluation be established to implement a national
land use policy and integrate it with national policies on
energy, growth and population.
c. EPA should encourage each Federal Department and
Agency to analyze the impact of their policies, programs
and practices on land use and seek to alleviate those im-
pacts adversely effecting environmental quality.
35
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The National Youth Advisory Board wishes to express its ap-
preciation for Administrator Russell E. Train's strong interest in
land use. Special thanks go to Robert D Bannister, Study Direc-
tor, who labored mightily to make this report a reality. Dwain
Winters and Lance King also have the Board's special thanks for
their efforts. The NYAB is grateful for the interest and support
of the Assistant Administrators and Office Directors, as well as
the program and staff offices they called upon for information
and ideas, their thorough review, and the comments tendered at
the conclusion of the study. The Board wishes also to thank former
Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus and former Deputy Ad-
ministrator Robert W. Fri for their strong support.
All ten Regional Administrators and the ten Regional Offices
provided support essential to the success of this effort. The Board
thanks them for that support. The more than forty persons who
worked nationwide on Regional Study Teams and produced the
Regional Reports and Case Studies provided the underpinning for
much of what appears in the final report. The Board thanks them.
Many other persons contributed in many often wonderful ways
their time, ideas, and commitment to the environment and to the
study goal. The Board feels a strong sense of gratitude to these
unknown people and regrets it will never fully appreciate their
contribution.
And finally, to those we should have mentioned here and did
not, we apologize for the oversight and trust that your commit-
ment to the land use idea will not be lessened for it.
The National Youth Advisory Board
1971-73
36
-------
NYAB Land Use Study Participants
1971-1973
NYAB Chairman: William D. Ruckelshaus
EPA Land Use Council
Chairman: Robert W. Fri
NYAB Executive Secretary: Robert H. Knight
NYAB Land Use Task
Force Chairman: Gary B. Hinton
NYAB Land Use Study
Director: Robert D Bannister
EPA Land Use Council
Leland Attaway Herbert Quinn
Rebecca Hanmer Charles Rogers
Eugene Jensen William Rowe
Glen Kendall Carolyn Russell
George Marienthal Roger Williams
NYAB Land Use Task Force Headquarters Research Staff
John Baen Louis Chibbaro
Paul Chakroff Karen Davis
Joel Epstein Andrew Goddard
Richard Fogelsong Pamela Hackes
Ann Gilbert Lance King
Thomas Gordon. William Lawrence
Lance King Jack Liebster
Peter Kolbeck Susan Lieberman
Kris Lindstrom Michael Montavon
Frank Lund Henry Richardson
David Ramsey Ralph Simmons
Dwain Winters
Editorial Board
Ann Gilbert William Lawrence
Andrew Goddard Eleanor Merrick
Peter Kolbeck Judson Starr
37
•it U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1974— 546-317/304
------- |