Environmental Trends
Implications for Small Communities
            in the South
             Produced for the
        Conference of Southern County
              Associations


                 By
              James £. Kundell
         Carl Vinson Institute of Government
           The University of Georgia

               March 1996

-------
         Environmental Trends

           Implications for Small Communities
                          in the South
                           March 1996
This document was produced for the Conference of Southern County Associations (CSCA) under a grant from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report was written by Dr. James E. Kundell with publication support
provided by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. The State
Associations participating in CSCA include: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

-------
                               Table of Contents




Executive Summary	1




Introduction  	3




Trends Affecting Small Communities in the South	5






      Population Trends  	5




      Environmental and Natural Resource Trends  	10




             Waste Management	10




             Air Quality/Energy	12




             Water Quality	13




             Water Resources/Supply 	15




             Forest Resources  	17




             Wildlife Resources	17




             Nonrenewable Resources	18




Environmental Infrastructure of Small Towns	19






      Water Supply	20




      Wastewater Treatment and Disposal	24




      Solid Waste Management  	28




Focus of Environmental Policies	30




Conclusions  . . . :	35




Endnotes	36

-------
                             List of Tables






                                                                      Page




Table 1       EPA Region 4 Cities and Small Towns                         4




Table 2       EPA Region 4 Population                                     6




Table 3       Population Change in Region 4: 1950-1990                      8




Table 4       Changing Focus of Environmental Policies                      30




Table 5       Ecological and Health Risks                                   33




Table 6       Public's Top Environmental Concerns                          34

-------
                             List of Figures

                                                                        Page

Figure 1      Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Major Cities
             in the Study Area                                              7

Figure 2      Percentage of Rural Population in Poverty, 1990                  11

Figure 3      Percentage of Rural Housing Units Using Water from
             a Public System or Private Company, 1990                       21

Figure 4      Percentage of Rural Housing Units Using Water from
             Drilled or Dug Well, 1990                                      22

Figure 5      Percentage of Rural Housing Units Using Water from Sources
             other than Public/Private Systems or Wells, 1990                  23

Figure 6      Percentage of Rural Housing Units Using a Public
             Sewer System, 1990                                           25

Figure 7      Percentage of Rural Housing Units Using Septic Tanks
             or Cesspools, 1990                                            26

Figure 8      Percentage of Rural Housing Units Using Sewage Disposal
             Methods other than Public Sewer Systems, Septic Tanks,
             or Cesspools, 1990                                            27

-------
                               Executive Summary

       Small towns and rural areas have a difficult time addressing environmental problems that
require legal, administrative, technical, and financial capacity to resolve. Although small
communities may not experience many of the environmental problems faced by urban areas or, if
they do, they may not be as severe, the lack of internal resources makes it difficult to address
these problems.  Small towns and rural areas tend to lack financial capacity due to small tax
bases; they have few, if any, staff; they frequently do not have private capability to assist them;
and they are generally older, incomes of their residents more limited, and infrastructure costs per
capita higher than in larger communities.  The dispersed nature of small communities also
contributes to the difficulty in resolving environmental problems.

       While small communities may have difficulty in handling environmental responsibilities,
the types of responsibilities they may be asked to address are changing. Congress and the
administration are currently examining federal environmental policies and programs with an eye
to shifting responsibilities to state and local governments.  As this devolution moves forward,
three efforts are necessary to ensure environmental quality in rural areas. First, as environmental
responsibilities shift from the federal government to states and their subdivisions, the capacity
must exist at these levels to effectively implement them. This is particularly true for small
communities. Capacity building must focus on the following:

       •      administrative capacity to handle paperwork and administer programs;

       •      financial capacity or having the fiscal resources to carry out the environmental
              responsibilities;

       •      legal authority to carry out effective environmental programs, including
              enforcement authority where appropriate and necessary; and

       •      technical capability to competently carry out environmental responsibilities.

If these capacities are not in place and cannot be provided, it may be necessary to alter
environmental policies to reflect this situation.

       In light of the limited resources available in small communities, the second effort for
sustaining environmental quality is to focus resources on the most pressing environmental
problems. A mechanism is needed to prioritize environmental, as well as other, problems and to
address the most significant first. Without such an approach, limited resources can be
squandered on relatively insignificant problems while severe problems go unaddressed.

       The third effort for sustaining environmental quality while revising environmental
policies and programs is to create an environmentally literate public.  It is important to realize
that the focus of environmental efforts is changing from point sources to nonpoint sources of

-------
pollution and from industrial sources of pollution to ones that are more dispersed and related to
modern lifestyle. To effectively address these sources of contamination, public information,
education, and involvement become critical. People have to understand why these dispersed
pollution sources can collectively create major problems; what needs to be done to prevent or
correct them; and how to do so effectively. It is unrealistic to think that public support and
action can be obtained without significant investments in informing and involving the public.
The use of advisory committees, focus groups, and other measures to incorporate public
involvement into the decision-making process will become increasingly important in the future.

       The public must also be provided with good information. It is important to have sound
research efforts designed to improve our understanding of complex environmental systems and
alternatives to address identified problems; to develop and utilize information systems to make
accurate information more readily available to all users; and to inform the public about
environmental matters. DeWitt John suggests that the evolving federal role with small
communities may center less on funding and more on the provision of information.  He contends
that federal policies toward rural areas should center on the provision of:

       •       information,

       •       expertise,

       •       civic capacity, and

       •       top-down support for bottom-up initiatives.

       However the changes in federal environmental policies and programs evolve, the federal
government should provide flexibility and support for local efforts to address the problems they
face in a way that meets their needs.

-------
                           Environmental Trends:
        Implications for Small Communities in the South*

                                    Introduction

       Rural areas, defined by the Census Bureau as open countryside and small towns (those
having a population of less than 2,500 people), have a difficult time addressing environmental
problems that require legal, administrative, technical, and financial capacity to resolve.tf  Yet
these small communities are faced with a variety of environmental problems and responsibilities
to address them.

       Although small communities may not experience many of the environmental problems
faced by urban areas or, if they do, they may not be as severe, the lack of internal resources
makes it difficult to address these problems. Small towns and rural areas, in which governmental
affairs are generally handled by the county commission, tend to lack financial capacity due to
small tax bases. They have few, if any, full-time staff, especially those trained to deal with
environmental matters.  The staff may be limited to a clerk and, possibly, a person who oversees
the water system or wastewater system, frequently on a part-time basis. Small towns and rural
areas do not generally have private capability to assist the local governments. Small
communities tend to be older, incomes of their residents more limited, and infrastructure costs
per capita higher than in larger communities.1

       The dispersed nature of small communities also  contributes to the difficulty in resolving
environmental problems.  Small towns make up the overwhelming majority of communities in
the United States.  Of the 39,000 units of general purpose local government in the country,
approximately 26,000 of them have populations of less than 2,500 people.2 In Region 4, this
same pattern holds true. As shown in Table 1, of the 3,214 incorporated towns and cities in the
region, 2,127 have populations of less than 2,500 and 1,521 of them are rural small towns,
located outside Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs).  Although the population is more
dispersed in small towns and rural areas, the number of  people involved is significant.
  fFor the purposes of this report, the South is defined as those states participating in the Conference of Southern
County Associations and includes: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.  For analysis purposes, however, states
have been limited to those eight in Region 4 of EPA and include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

  nFor the purposes of this report, we will use the term "urban-like" area to mean all population and housing units
located inside a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and outside an MSA but within an incorporated area with a
population of 2,500 or more (1990 Census count).  "Rural" area means all population and housing units not located
in an urban-like area (i.e., located outside an MSA and not in an incorporated area with a population of 2,500 or
more). The term "small community" includes small towns of under 2,500, both incorporated and unincorporated,
located outside an MSA; and rural counties.

-------
             Table 1
EPA Region 4 Cities and Small Towns

—•———————————————'

Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region 4 Total
Cities in Study Area
r™—— ————— ———— ———•-•-———————•»———————•-— ————T-— ——•-•-—'-—--————————-•——— — — — — — «.—«——,
Outside Metro Areas Within Metro Areas
# Cities <= 2,500 j # Cities > 2,500 # Cities <= 2,500 # Cities > 2,500
193 j 61 112 73
76 j 37 91 186
298 j 84 76 77
	 r 	 r 	 *"
190 ! 65 132 51
,. ,. ,.
195 j 64 12 24
.————.._..—..————....— —_—f.—_ — ~_ _—.—....— —f. _.._.._..__.._ —————— — — f. —— — h.— -.-.-,——
290 I 83 65 73
114 j 48 63 45
.———————-,——— ————-.— —|_— -.——-.————————— _——^_— — ———-.————-.————— _|-—— -._... — — — — —
165 i 57 55 59
1,521 j 499 606 588

Total
"Rural"
193
76
298
190
195
290
114
165
1,521

Total
"Urban"
246
314
237
248
100
221
156
171
1,693

Total

439
390
535
438
295
511
270
336
3,214

-------
As presented in Table 2, of the 44,707,666 people living in Region 4 in 1990, about one-quarter
(i.e., 10,292,930) lived in small towns and rural areas.

       Small communities may be called on to assume a variety of environmental
responsibilities including the provision of certain environmental services (i.e., drinking water
supply, wastewater disposal, solid waste management) and/or addressing specific environmental
problems (i.e., leaking underground storage  tanks, Superfund sites).  Additionally they may be
called on to comply with environmental review requirements for proposed activities under the
National Environmental Policy Act or state environmental assessment laws or to obtain a Section
404 permit for activities that alter wetlands.  As a result, there is a schism between what small
communities are asked to do and their ability to do it.

       The difficulties faced by small communities in addressing environmental concerns should
not be construed as a lack of interest. A study of the environmental attitudes of rural residents in
the western United States concluded that rural residents hold similar pro-environment attitudes as
held by other segments  of the population.3 Consequently, local support for addressing
environmental matters may generally be present but impediments, such as the lack of technical
and financial resources, make it difficult for local officials to do so.

       The purpose of this report is to look  at environmental issues and trends affecting small
communities in the South.  Understanding these trends is important for two reasons. First, many
local government officials have had a difficult time dealing with environmental matters. Faced
with an increasing array of federal and state environmental requirements, they have been placed
in the position of meeting sometimes expensive mandates while voters are saying "no new
taxes." Second, awareness of these trends helps local officials prepare for them.

            Trends Affecting Small Communities in the South

       The information in this section has been compiled to serve as a base for consideration of
what the future may hold for small communities in the South.4  Some of the issues and
challenges discussed may already be upon us while others may not appear for many years, if at
all. It is important, however, to think about  where we are headed, what it might mean for small
communities, and to consider what steps might be taken to better enable public officials to
effectively address these emerging issues.

Population Trends

       Figure 1 shows MSAs and cities (i.e., over 2,500 people) in Region 4 of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These "urban-like" areas, as defined here, are the ones
where the bulk of the population lives and where many of the environmental problems exist.  It is
also these areas that have the most resources, both financial and human, to address the problems.
It is the areas in white on this map that represent the small towns and rural areas of Region 4 and
it is these areas that this report is focused on.

-------
                                                                                    Table 2
                                                                           EPA Region 4 Population
Population of Study Area
i
j Outside Metro Areas

Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region 4 Total
In cities <=
2,500
134,167
69,214
210,972
154,051
158,984
231,462
76,272
155,227
1,190,349
In cities
> 2,500
477,222
254,062
h ,
666,772
480,774
609,625
736,807
378,865
r 	 -,
Unincorp.
702,915
860,560
1,388,772
1,336,592
1,028,933
1,904,051
916,952
h j. __,
455,149 ! 963,806
4,059,276 ! 9,102,581
Within Metro Areas
In cities <=
2,500
104,086
95,317
65,401
96,555
11,426
68,748
61,578
53,304
556,415
In cities
> 2,500
1,716,150
5,985,730
1,638,705
1,022,243
515,902
	 1
1,988,171
761,240
^._«... ...... .^
2,180,524
~
15,808,665
r 	
Unincorp.
905,947
5,673,043
2,507,594
595,081
248,346
1,699,398
1,291,796
^. — —— — -.— —4--.™ — -..
1,069,175
13,990,380
Total
"Rural"
837,082
929,774
1,599,744
1,490,643
1,187,917
2,135,513
993,224
1,119,033
10,292,930
Total
"Urban"
3,203,405
12,008,152
4,878,472
2,194,653
1,385,299
4,493,124
2,493,479
3,758,152
34,414,736
Total
4,040,487
12,937,926
6,478,216
3,685,296
2,573,216
6,628,637
3,486,703
4,877,185
44,707,666
0\
               Source:  Data are from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Summary Tape File 3A.

               Note:  If a city "straddles" a county line which results in part of the city being in a metro area and part in a nonmetro area, the city and its total population have
               been assigned to whichever area contains the majority of its population. For this reason, these data cannot be used to calculate exact populations living in metro
               and nonmetro areas.

-------
Figure 1: Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Major Cities
          in the Study Area
          Major Cities

          Metropolitan Statistical
          Areas (MSAs)

-------
       Population changes over the past 40 years have had a profound impact on the South.  The
increased population results in increasing demands being placed on the natural resources base
and increasing generation of waste products, many of which become pollutants.  Table 3 presents
population changes in the region between 1950 and 1990 in total numbers and percent change.
       Following are some thoughts and observations relating to population changes in the
South.
              At current rates of increase, the South is experiencing a 43-year population
              doubling time.  Today we have nearly twice as many people in the region as lived
              here in 1950. The population growth in the region is equivalent to that of many
              third world countries.

              Overall, the population is increasing at a fairly rapid rate but it is not consistent
              across the region. Some areas are experiencing rapid, unsustainable growth while
              other areas are losing population.

                                         Table 3
                       Population Change in Region 4:1950-1990
                                         (1,000)
State
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
N.Carolina
S.Carolina
Tennessee
TOTAL
1950
Pop.
3,062
2,771
3,445
2,945
2,179
4,062
2,117
3,292
23,873
Percent
Change
1950-60
6.7
78.7
14.5
3.2
0.0
12.2
12.6
8.4

Percent
Change
1960-70
5.4
37.1
16.4
6.0
1.8
11.6
8.7
10.1

Percent
Change
1970-80
13.1
43.5
19.1
13.7
13.7
15.7
21.9
16.9

Percent
Change
1980-90
3.8
32.8
18.6
0.7
2.1
12.7
11.7
6.2

1990
Pop.
4,041
12,938
6,478
3,685
2,573
6,629
3,487
4,877
44,708
Percent
Change
1950-90
32.0
467.1
88.0
25.1
18.1
63.2
64.7
48.1
87.3
                                            8

-------
       3.     The population in the South is becoming more diversified and conflicts over
             environmental and natural resource issues will become more intense.

       4.     Some small communities are faced with rapid population increase and the
             challenges of meeting demands for urban infrastructure and services, while other
             small communities are faced with deteriorating infrastructure and cutbacks in
             services.

       5.     Development of growth management measures are becoming increasingly
             important. Even small communities will increasingly find that it is in their best
             interest to plan and adopt growth management policies that protect public
             investments and private interests in property.

       6.     Coastal zone management efforts and other actions designed to deal with growth
             as it relates to environmentally sensitive areas will increase.  "Takings" conflicts
             will increase until the issues are clarified by Congress and/or the courts.

       Local planning and growth management policies have been concentrated in urban-like
areas.  National demographic trends of the past 20 years, however, indicate that many rural areas
are experiencing high rates of growth. One study found that in parts of the West and Northeast
the greatest threat to many rural communities was not economic decline, but prosperity.5 Growth
pressures may result in, among other things, higher demands for infrastructure, environmental
destruction, diminished quality of life, and concerns over destruction of scenic quality and
ecologically sensitive areas.6 At the same time, however, most rural areas have lower wages,
have almost as much poverty as inner cities, and are losing population.7 For example, in 1990,
rural areas in Georgia had an average household income of $29,165 while average household
income in urban-like areas was $36,810.

       Rural communities may be grouped into four categories:8

       •      poor, rural communities with little basic infrastructure, few jobs, and tight control
             by  outside corporations or narrow oligarchies;

       •      centers for low-wage manufacturing (declining as firms move their operations to
             other countries);

       •      agricultural and mining towns with relatively good standards of living, but in
             many places their populations are dropping; and

       •      rapidly growing tourist towns with increasing numbers of retirees and
             professionals moving in.

-------
The problems faced by these different types of small communities and their capacities to respond
to them differ. Consequently, policies should be flexible to enable local efforts to be appropriate
under varying circumstances.

       Figure 2 presents the percentage of the rural population in the region below the poverty
level in 1990. As shown on the map, between 14 and 27 percent of the rural population in the
Region 4 states live below the poverty level. This suggests that the financial capacity of small
communities to address environmental matters is limited.

Environmental and Natural Resource Trends

       This section presents some important facts and some apparent trends relating to the
environment (i.e., waste management, air quality, water quality) and natural resources (i.e., water
resources, forest resources, wildlife resources, nonrenewable resources). The intent is to present
a snapshot of where the region is and where it is headed in relation to the various environmental
and natural resources components.

Waste Management

       Waste management efforts in the region are currently going through a transition period,
especially for solid waste management.  When the transition is finalized, it appears that the
following observations will hold true for the region.

       1.     Solid waste management will be regionalized with fewer but larger disposal
             facilities. They will increasingly be operated by the private sector or groups of
             local governments operating them in a businesslike manner.

       2.     Recycling and composting efforts will continue but plateau at a sustainable level.
             Sustainable levels for small communities may be considerably different from
             those of more urban areas.  Recycling and composting will increasingly be
             subjected to regulations.

       3.     Solid waste/recyclables management will increasingly face the potential of being
             regulated as a utility.

       4.     Greater emphasis will be placed on pollution prevention and source reduction.

       5.     Solid waste regulatory attention will turn to:

             •       industrial solid waste disposal practices;

             •       construction and demolition waste disposal practices; and

             •       management facilities currently permitted by rule.

                                            10

-------
  Figure 2: Percentage of Rural Population in Poverty, 1990
            Rural Poverty
            !     I  7.5-15.1
            |     j  15.1 - 19.3



                   MSA Counties

                                                             State-level data:
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
22.0%
14.5%
16.6%
24.2%
27.0%
15.0%
18.2%
17.3%
Note: "Rural Population" includes only those persons living in cities of 2,500 or less or in rural areas.
Only nonmetropolitan counties are included.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Summary Tape File 3A


-------
       6.      Collection and use of methane as a fuel will increase.

       7.      Hazardous waste and low-level radioactive waste will continue to be managed on
              a regional, interstate level.

       8.      High-level radioactive waste will be managed at the national level.
              Transportation and processing of high-level waste will be issues in the South.

Air Quality/Energy

       Air quality and energy policies are inextricable.  Although air pollutants may be created
by activities not associated with energy usage, a number of the major pollutants are directly
related to energy utilization.

       1.      Historically, air pollution has been a local concern in urban areas and around
              industrial sites. Since the 1960s, it has evolved to a national issue, due in part to
              the automobile, to an international issue (i.e., acid deposition), and to a global
              issue (stratospheric ozone depletion and global climate change).

       2.      The Southeast is more prone naturally to have some types of air quality problems
              due to its warm moist climate, naturally occurring high levels of volatile organic
              compounds from vegetation, and occurrence of stagnating air masses that allow
              pollutants to build up.

       3.      Ground level ozone is the most significant air pollutant in the South.

       4.      Ground level ozone is a human health concern but it also has major impact on
              forest and agricultural production, which frequently are the mainstay of rural
              economies. Although the focus on controlling ground level ozone has been in
              urban areas, it may turn out that it will have to be addressed on a multistate
              regional level, rather than the geographically smaller, nonattainment areas used
              today.  As a result, small communities may have to meet similar requirements as
              urban areas.

       5.      Implementing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 will provide some local
              governments  (e.g., those in nonattainment areas) with considerable responsibility
              and cost.

       6.      All local governments will face higher energy costs.

       7.      Energy conservation and increased energy efficiency (i.e., pollution prevention)
              will become more important and will affect local actions relating to: location,
              design, and construction of facilities;  transportation (i.e., mass transit, alternative
              fuels);  purchasing; and work behavior (i.e., telecommuting).

                                            12

-------
       8.      While policies are being implemented to control air pollution resulting from
              automobile exhaust, the price of gasoline today in real terms is at a 50-year low.
              In 1940, in 1993 dollars, a gallon of gasoline cost $1.57; in 1981 it cost $2.02; and
              now it costs $ 1.18.9 The low price of gasoline encourages the increased use of the
              automobile and thus increased emissions. Consequently, in our attempts to
              protect air quality, we are addressing the symptoms of the problem rather than the
              problem itself.

       9.      Global climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion have the potential to
              have monumental impacts on what we do and how we do it. Potential impacts
              include:

              •       more erratic weather conditions (storms and droughts);

              •       potential sea level rise resulting in heavy investments in protecting the
                     built environment and loss of many wetlands and other natural areas;

              •       loss of coral reefs and marine fisheries (this may or may not be related to
                     changes in water temperature but for some reason important resources are
                     disappearing at an alarming rate); and

              •       changes in climatic regions with major impacts on agriculture and forestry
                     production and species extinction.

Water Quality

       In  1972 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) was passed that made
it a national goal to have "fishable" and "swimmable" waters in the United States by 1977. We
have not reached that goal but considerable progress has been made. This progress is based on
the initiatives included in the Act:

       •      requirements for classification of streams based on water usage and quality;

       •      requirements for monitoring water quality;

       •      establishment of the national pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES)
              requiring permits for point discharges to surface waters;

       •      establishment of the construction grants program to help finance construction of
              wastewater facilities; and

       •      requirements to study nonpoint sources of pollution.

The permit process has worked well to control point discharges of wastewater. Currently

                                           13

-------
emphasis on controlling nonpoint sources is increasing and the construction grants programs is
being converted to a revolving loan program.

       1.      Water quality has improved over the past 30 years by focusing on control of the
              end-of-the-pipe measures, major public and private investments in wastewater
              treatment infrastructure construction, and regulatory actions.

       2.      Water quality is still a problem in many areas, particularly downstream from
              urban areas.

       3.      The Clean Water Act is up for reauthorization and will focus more on:

              •      river basin management;

              •      nonpoint pollution control;

              •      pollution prevention; and

              •      wetlands.

       4.      The least costly approaches for protecting water quality have already been used.
              Treating wastewater to meet higher standards is feasible but will be costly.
       5.      Clean technologies will reduce the amount of waste that requires treatment.
                                                                                   10
       6.      Increasingly, industries will switch from a single, pass-through system to a
              closed-loop process so that the water within an industrial facility can be used over
              and over again with zero discharge of wastewater.11

       7.      Issues relating to reliability and safe-failure of pollution control infrastructure will
              increase.12

       8.      States will continue to institute their revolving loan funds for water and
              wastewater treatment plant construction but these programs must be supported at
              a level that allows for timely project funding and/or be augmented by other
              financing mechanisms.

       9.      Land-use measures designed to control stormwater and erosion will become more
              common. Greater emphasis will be placed on:

              •     river basin/watershed management,

              •     protection of vegetative buffers along streams and lakes,
                                            14

-------
              •      use of water retention mechanisms designed to limit or eliminate off-site
                    discharges of stormwater runoff,

              •      adoption of mandatory best management practices, and

              •      protection of highly credible soils.

       10.     Greater emphasis will be placed on institutional arrangements to operate water
              systems more effectively (i.e., coordinating releases from reservoirs and
              discharges of treated wastewater with timing restrictions for water intakes).13

       11.     The use of wastewater to enhance the environment will increase.  For example,
              land application of treated wastewater can increase soil fertility and plant growth
              and the creation of artificial wetlands for wastewater treatment or stormwater
              retention can provide habitat for plant and animal species.14

       12.     Stream buffer zones will become more important for plant and animal species. As
              land-use changes occur, populations of plants and animals are likely to become
              isolated. Increasingly, wildlife corridors will be necessary to enable plants and
              animals to interbreed with other populations of their species.  Streamside buffers
              can serve the dual purpose of water quality  protection and wildlife corridors.

       13.     Wetlands protection measures will be addressed and formalized.  Delineation
              criteria will be agreed to.  States will likely move to assume implementation of the
              404 permitting program (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and there will be an
              increased role for local governments in wetlands management.  Greater emphasis
              will be placed on advanced delineation to enable local governments to "flag"
              wetlands in their planning process.

       14.     Many species of plants and animals listed as endangered or threatened under the
              Endangered Species Act live in wetlands and other aquatic  environments. The
              Endangered Species Act is up for reauthorization. Amendments to this law may
              have significant impacts on water-related decisions in the future.

       15.     Greater emphasis will be placed on land-use activities that affect groundwater
              quality.  Measures such as wellhead protection will become more common and
              greater consideration will be given to land-use activities in  significant
              groundwater recharge areas.

Water Resources/Supply

       As the human population multiplies, increasing demands in the form of offstream
consumptive uses and instream flow requirements are placed on the region's water resources by
competing users.  Although dams have been constructed that regulate the flow of surface water,

                                            15

-------
storing water for use during dry periods, the quantity of water available has not significantly
changed.

       1.      Even though the South is the "wettest" region in the country, water resources are
              not evenly distributed over the region, nor are demands for water evenly
              distributed.

       2.      Interuse water conflicts (i.e., instream v. offstream and among public supply v.
              industrial v. agricultural v. power production) will increase as evidenced by the
              call for minimum instream flows relating to Federal Energy Regulatory
              Commission licenses.

       3.      Demands for interbasin water transfers will increase, especially in the Piedmont
              and other "hillier" regions where population increases are occurring.  Resistance
              to interbasin water transfers will increase at a comparable rate.

       4.      Interstate water conflicts will increase as evidenced by proceedings in Virginia
              and North Carolina; Alabama, Florida, and Georgia; and South Carolina and
              Georgia.

       5.      States will be moving to institute and tighten water rights and water allocation
              programs. This may include mechanisms for the transfer of water rights and
              greater use of water markets.

       6.      Attaching the true cost to water supports water conservation and the efficient use
              of water.

       7.      Demands for the protection of instream flows will increase.

       8.      Reservoir siting will become more difficult due to the remaining sites being less
              acceptable (e.g., 80 percent of Texas's potential reservoir sites have been used),
              the impacts on wetlands, and the costs.

       9.      Limitations of withdrawals from some aquifers (e.g., Edwards Aquifer in Texas,
              Floridan Aquifer in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina) may be imposed.

       10.     Local governments are faced with major costs associated with water supply
              infrastructure. A federal financial assistance program will be adopted for water
              supply purposes.

       11.     Concerns with required testing under the Safe Drinking Water Act will be
              resolved.
                                           16

-------
Forest Resources

       Throughout the history of the United States, forests have been used for economic
purposes.  Most of the old growth forest has been cleared for agricultural purposes, urban
growth, fuel wood, and to produce lumber, paper, and other forest products.

       1.      Forest acreage has fluctuated over the years but increasing demands for land will
              result in less forested acreage in the future.

       2.      Softwood trees, principally pines, are generally of more economic value than
              hardwood trees such as oaks and hickories.  Hardwood trees are of more value to
              wildlife than pines.

       3.      Managed forests tend to be less diverse (e.g., pines) and younger than natural
              forests.

       4.      Demands for forest products are increasing.  Some of the increasing demands for
              paper and wood products can be met by increasing recycling of paper and wood.

       5.      Historically, demands on forests have been for consumptive and utilitarian
              purposes but increasingly the demands are diversifying (i.e., wilderness,
              endangered species habitat such as old growth trees for red-cockaded
              woodpeckers).15

       6.      Leasing of land for hunting is becoming a significant source of income for
              forestland owners and a means for leaving acreage in hardwoods rather than
              converting it to pine plantations.16

       7.      Mandatory best management practices (BMPs) will be adopted for forestry
              operations to ensure that they have less impact on water and other resources.

Wildlife Resources

       The South is very likely the most biologically diverse region in the United States. It
includes the complex mixed mesophytic forest of the Appalachians, mixed oak-pine forests,
hardwood bottomland forests, freshwater and coastal wetlands, the subtropical region of south
Florida, and the more arid grassland and desert areas of Texas.

       1.      Wildlife species have been heavily used in the past, resulting in the extinction of
              some species (i.e., passenger pigeon, ivory-billed woodpecker, and Carolina
              parakeet). Other species were eliminated from some areas but did not become
              extinct (i.e., whitetailed deer, turkey, cougar).  Many of these species have been
              reintroduced in parts of or throughout their former range.
                                            17

-------
       2.     Game laws focusing on the species that can be taken, the means by which they
              can be taken, and the time of day and year that they can be taken first appeared in
              the 1700s.  All states in the region have well-developed fish and wildlife laws
              and programs.

       3.     As land-use changes occur, populations of plants and animals are likely to become
              isolated.  This fragmentation can lead to insufficient habitat to maintain the
              populations and insufficient numbers of plants or animals to function as a
              breeding population, resulting in their extirpation. Increasingly, wildlife corridors
              will be necessary to enable plants and animals to interbreed with other
              populations of their species.

       4.     Populations of many songbirds in the South are declining due to a variety of
              reasons, including the loss of suitable wintering habitat in the neotropics (i.e.,
              Central and South America).17

       5.     Land-use changes associated with human activities are beneficial to some species
              and detrimental to others. "Edge species" or those that do well along the
              boundaries of different ecosystems (i.e., deer,  turkey) are doing well. "Interior
              species," such as cougar, that need large expanses of a certain type of habitat and
              "specialist species," such as the gopher tortoise and indigo snake, that inhabit only
              sandhill areas are not doing as well and are most commonly the species listed as
              endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.18

       6.     Nonconsumptive uses of wildlife such as  bird-watching  and photography are
              increasing.

       7.     Hunting will hold steady in terms of actual numbers of hunters but will decline as
              a percentage of the population that hunts.

       8.     Increasingly, greater emphasis is being placed on nongame and endangered
              species.  The Endangered Species Act is up for reauthorization. The question of
              how to equitably  address endangered species protection  on private property will
              have to be resolved.

Nonrenewable Resources

       The South has a variety of nonrenewable resources such as fossil fuels; iron, copper, and
other metal ores; stone; and soil deposits. These nonrenewable resources have been used
throughout our history and have contributed to the economic development of the region. On the
other hand, extraction and use of some of these resources have resulted  in environmental
problems.
                                           18

-------
       1.     A wide variety of fossil fuel and mineral, stone, and soil resources exist in the
             South.

       2.     Fossil fuel resources include:

             •      petroleum,

             •      natural gas, and

             •      coal.

       3.     Most coal deposits in the region have a relatively high sulfur content and are thus
             less valuable due to air pollution concerns. Decreased demand for high sulfur
             coal has major economic impacts on coal mining regions.

       4.     Petroleum extraction in the Gulf of Mexico contributing to land subsidence is
             likely advancing the demise of the highly productive marshes that support the
             Gulf seafood industry.

       5.     Mineral, stone, and soil resources include:

             •      metals (i.e., iron,  gold, and bauxite);

             •      stone (i.e., limestone,  marble, and granite); and

             •      soil deposits (i.e., sands, clays, and peat).

       6.     The mining industry will face increasing local opposition to its activities that are
             perceived as being incompatible with other land uses.

       7.     Increasingly, policies will focus on ensuring that, as extraction of nonrenewable
             resources occurs, land will be brought back into biological productivity.

       The trends discussed in this section in some cases are the reason that our environmental
policies are in place.  In other cases, they are the result of current environmental policies.

              Environmental Infrastructure of Small Towns

       In urban-like areas, environmental services and infrastructure (i.e., infrastructure for
water supply, treatment, and distribution; wastewater collection and treatment; solid waste
management) are generally in place.  This is frequently not the case in small communities. As a
result of the dispersed nature of the population and the lack of resources, constructing and
operating environmental infrastructure and providing environmental services may be impractical.


                                           19

-------
Water Supply

       Water for domestic, industrial, commercial, and agricultural uses may come from surface
water sources such as lakes, reservoirs, and rivers or from groundwater sources (i.e., wells,
springs). Rural populations have historically depended on individual water sources, principally
wells, to meet their needs. As populations become concentrated in towns and cities, however, it
becomes more feasible, and frequently necessary to ensure an uncontaminated water supply, to
provide water through a public or private system.  Nationally, about two-thirds of the rural cities
and one-third of unincorporated rural communities have public water service.19 These, in part are
the result of the Farmers Home Administration financing of public water systems,

       As shown on the maps on the next three pages (Figures 3,4, and 5), the percentage of
rural populations obtaining water from public or private systems ranges from 39.4 percent in
North Carolina to 79.9 percent in Mississippi.  The flip side of this is that those households not
served by public or private systems must depend on individual sources. Most rural households,
not attached to a public or private water  system, utilize drilled or dug wells for their water
supply. Rural households utilizing drilled or dug wells range from 19.1 percent in  Mississippi to
55.3 percent in North Carolina.

       A generally small percentage of the rural population, not hooked into public or private
systems, obtains water from other sources  such as springs, streams, and cisterns. Rural
households utilizing such sources range  from 0.4 percent in Florida to 10.6 percent in Kentucky.
Rural households in mountainous states  such as Kentucky and Tennessee are more likely to use
these alternative sources. Over half (56.4 percent) of the rural households in Washington
County, Kentucky, obtain their water from sources other than public or private systems or wells.

       Meeting the water supply needs of small communities presents both financial and
logistical problems.  The economies of scale would argue for regional approaches but the
dispersed nature of the population  may hinder such arrangements.

       The major federal law relating to rural water supply is the Safe Drinking Water Act,
although this law does not apply to individual wells or other sources of water used by individual
rural households.  It sets requirements for public water supplies. With the 1987 amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act, Congress directed EPA to set standards for 25 new chemicals per
year. This requirement resulted in a significant increase in testing requirements for drinking
water systems and the cost of providing  water through public and private systems.  The costs in
some cases became excessive and  contributed to the backlash on unfunded mandates. Changes
in testing requirements will be addressed through the amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
                                           20

-------
Figure 3:  Percentage of Rural Housing Units Using Water
            from a Public System or Private Company, 1990
      % Using Water from
      a Public System or
      Private Company
               1.8-33.8
               33.8 - 52.5
               52.5 - 72.9
               72.9 - 96.7
               MSA Counties
State-level data:
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
63.6%
52.0%
45.5%
58.7%
79.9%
39.4%
South Carolina  57.0%
                                                        Tennessee
              60.7%
Note: "Rural Population" includes only those persons living in cities of 2,500 or less or in rural areas.
Only nonmetropolitan counties are included.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Summary Tape File 3A
                                    :

-------
Figure 4: Percentage of Rural Housing Units Using Water
            from Drilled or Dug Well, 1990
      % Using Well Water
            ^j  2.2-20.3



         m  61.1 -96.4
                MSA Counties
                                                         State-level data:
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South  Carolina
Tennessee
33.4%
47.6%
52.3%
30.6%
19.1%
55.3%
42.3%
33.0%
Note: "Rural Population" includes only those persons living in cities of 2,500 or less or in rural areas.
Only nonmetropolitan counties are included.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Summary Tape File 3A
                                    22

-------
Figure 5:  Percentage of Rural Housing Units Using Water
            from Sources other than Public/Private Systems
            or Wells, 1990
       % Using Water from
       "Other" Sources
         |     |  0-0.5




                MSA Counties
State-level data:
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
 3.0%
 0.4%
 2.2%
10.6%
 1.0%
 5.3%
 0.7%
 6.3%
 Note: "Rural Population" includes only those persons living in cities of 2,500 or less or in rural areas.
 Only nonmetropolitan counties are included.

 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Summary Tape File 3A
                                    23

-------
       Technical assistance is available to rural areas from EPA, state agencies, and the National
Rural Water Association and its state chapters  This network of rural water operators is important
in providing educational programs and technical assistance to small towns and rural areas
interested in developing water supply systems. Other institutions and organizations such as the
Cooperative Extension Service and local government associations may also provide technical
assistance to small communities.

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal

       Rural populations have historically used individual wastewater disposal options such as
septic tanks. As populations become more concentrated, health concerns force the institution of
sewer systems to more effectively treat and dispose of human waste. The maps on the next three
pages (Figures 6,7, and 8) present wastewater treatment and disposal options utilized by rural
populations in the region. Whereas a relatively high percent of rural households are served by a
public or private water supply system, the percentage served by a public sewer system is less.
The percentage  of rural households with public sewer service ranges from 13.4 percent in
Alabama to 28.9 percent in South Carolina. These figures are consistent with a national study
that found that about half of the rural cities and 89 percent of unincorporated rural communities
were without wastewater treatment plants and 25 percent of the rural cities have inadequate
plants.20  This may reflect the higher cost associated with public wastewater systems over water
supply systems. It may also reflect a view that a good water supply is more important for
economic development and other purposes than is a good wastewater system. Although large
sums of federal  and state funds have been earmarked for wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal systems, relatively little of this has found its way to small communities in the South.
Economies of scale have resulted in most of the funds being spent in urban-like areas.

       The major wastewater treatment and disposal options in the region for rural households
are the use of septic tanks and cesspools, which ranges from 67.9 percent of the rural households
in Mississippi to 80.9 percent in Alabama. In most Region 4 states over three quarters of the
rural households utilize septic tanks or cesspools.  In Baker County, Florida, 96.7 percent of the
housing units use a septic tank or cesspool. Although septic tanks can be an effective way to
handle human waste, they must be installed and maintained properly. If they are not, they can
result in groundwater contamination.  About half of the waterborne disease outbreaks in the
United States are related to contaminated groundwater and septic systems are the most frequently
reported cause of the contamination.  Where groundwater contamination results from septic
systems, it is generally related to  the density of the systems  as well.21

       A relatively small percentage of rural households in  the region utilize other  means for
sewage treatment and disposal. These may vary from outhouses to chemical toilets. Rural
households utilizing alternative sewage options range from  1.9 percent in Florida to 8.4 percent
in Kentucky. In Clarke County, Alabama, 28.1 percent of the rural housing units rely on sewage
disposal by methods other than septic tanks, cesspools, or public sewer systems.
                                           24

-------
Figure 6: Percentage of Rural Housing Units Using a Public
            Sewer System, 1990
        % Using Public
        Sewer System
          \2 H  0.9-9.8




                 MSA Counties
State-level data:
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
13.4%
27.3%
18.9%
17.5%
24.9%
16.1%
28.9%
15.0%
 Note: "Rural Population" includes only those persons living in cities of 2,500 or less or in rural areas.
 Only nonmetropolitan counties are included.

 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Summary Tape File 3A

-------
Figure 7: Percentage of Rural Housing Units Using Septic
            Tanks or Cesspools, 1990
       % Using Septic
       Tank or Cesspool
                20.8 - 68.3
                68.3 - 77.3
                77.3 - 85.6
                85.6 - 96.7
                MSA Counties
State-level data:
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
80.4%
70.8%
78.1%
74.2%
67.9%
80.4%
South Carolina  68.2%
                                                         Tennessee
              80.9%
Note: "Rural Population" includes only those persons living in cities of 2,500 or less or in rural areas.
Only nonmetropolitan counties are included.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Summary Tape File 3A
                                    26

-------
Figure 8:  Percentage of Rural Housing Units Using Sewage
            Disposal Methods other than Public Sewer Systems,
            Septic Tanks, or Cesspools, 1990
          Using "Other"
       Sewage Disposal Methods
State-level data:
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
                                                                    6.3%
                                                                    1.9%
                                                                    3.0%
                                                                    8.4%
                                                                    7.2%
                                                                    3.5%
                                                                    3.0%
                                                                    4.0%
Note: "Rural Population" includes only those persons living in cities of 2,500 or less or in rural areas.
Only nonmetropolitan counties are included.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Summary Tape File 3A

-------
       The major federal law relating to wastewater treatment and disposal is the Clean Water
Act. This law establishes water quality standards and requires permits for wastewater
dischargers, including public wastewater treatment plants. Originally, a federal grant program
provided funds on a matching basis for construction of wastewater treatment facilities. This is
being converted to a revolving loan program.

       In discussing the plight of local officials in addressing wastewater concerns, the National
Association of Towns and Townships states that the initial financial assessment for facility
construction is almost always a sobering experience but that small towns can capitalize on their
strengths. They then present some recommendations based on the experience of small-
community leaders:

       •      fixing or upgrading an existing system, when possible, is better than building a
             new one;

       •      cutting down on water usage cuts down on the size and cost of new  facilities;

       •      several small systems may be better  than one big one under specific
             circumstances, such as widely scattered population centers;

       •      using a homegrown workforce can substitute for overqualified or out-of-town
             labor on some construction tasks; and

       •      one hundred percent local financing  is sometimes less costly  than involvement
             with grants and loans that may impose delays, unnecessary design standards, and
             burdensome requirements on the project.

Solid Waste Management

       Disposing of garbage or solid waste in rural America has generally involved burning it,
burying it, or dumping it. Whatever method was used, it frequently took place close to the
house. As populations become more concentrated,  however, solid waste collection and disposal
services become more common. The responsibility for disposing of municipal solid waste has,
in most cases, been assumed by local governments, with or without private sector involvement,
and generally depended on open dumps for waste disposal. It is probably safe to say that,
historically, all counties in the region had at least one dump to handle their solid waste.

       In 1965, federal legislation was passed in the form of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The
thrust of this legislation was to move from open dumps to sanitary landfills for solid waste
disposal. Sanitary landfills differ from open dumps principally in having the waste compacted
and covered daily.  Although the federal law favored sanitary landfills, no federal permitting
system was called for. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, however, the states in Region 4 enacted
legislation which established permitting systems for solid waste disposal or  assumed that
responsibility under their general environmental protection authority.

                                           28

-------
       In 1976, the federal law was amended and greatly expanded with the passage of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  The thrust of this law was to remove most
of the hazardous waste (i.e., industrial chemical waste) from the solid waste stream and to
establish different management requirements for the hazardous waste. As with the 1965 law, the
role of the federal government was widely interpreted to be advisory, leaving the states and the
subdivisions with the responsibility to see that solid waste was managed properly.

       By 1984, however, it was apparent that more was needed to ensure that solid waste
disposal did not result in environmental degradation. With the 1984 amendments  to RCRA,
Congress directed EPA to develop environmentally protective landfill standards. These Subtitle
D standards require the use of liners, leachate collection systems, methane monitoring,
groundwater monitoring, and closure and postclosure care plans.

       The impact of the Subtitle D regulations is significant. It was apparent when the draft
regulations were released that the cost of solid waste management would increase dramatically.
This realization coupled with the difficulty in siting new disposal facilities placed local
governments in an onerous situation. As a result, they turned to their respective state capitols for
help. Between 1988 and 1991 all states in Region 4, as well as most states across the country,
enacted comprehensive solid waste management legislation. The laws that were enacted by
states were essentially designed to accomplish two objectives. First, the laws brought the states
into general compliance with the Subtitle D regulations. Second, they set in place a variety of
criteria designed to reduce the amount of waste requiring disposal. Emphasis for waste reduction
has focused on increasing recycling, but other options include increasing composting and
mulching of organic waste, principally yard trimmings; reducing the amount of waste generated
at the source; and encouraging reuse of materials to keep them out of landfills.

        These developments in reducing and managing municipal solid waste have had a
profound impact on the rural South. First, the days of every county having its own landfill are
gone.  For example, the number of landfills in Georgia decreased from 181 in 1990 to about half
that many in 1995.  At the same time, the disposal capacity remained at the same  or higher level
because the new landfills coming on line were larger. As a result, many local governments,
primarily rural local governments, have gotten out of the solid waste disposal business. Larger,
regional public and, increasingly, private landfills are replacing the county landfill.  Coupled
with this is a higher cost for solid waste disposal.

        With the increased interest in reducing the solid waste stream, many local governments
are instituting recycling programs. Small rural communities have found it more difficult to
institute recycling programs due to the lack of infrastructure, lower volumes of materials
recovered, and higher transportation costs.  Some rural local governments, individually or with
their neighboring jurisdictions, have adopted some creative mechanisms to allow them to recycle
at higher levels.
                                            29

-------
                       Focus of Environmental Policies

       U.S. environmental policies are in a state of flux for two reasons.  One reason is the
perception by some that our environmental policies are not doing what they should be doing;
they are not protecting the environment as well as they should while the regulatory requirements
are seen by some as being too prescriptive, costly, and inflexible. The second reason that our
environmental policies are in a state of flux is that the nature of the problems they are designed to
address are changing. The problems are changing from principally health to ecological risks,
from point to nonpoint sources, from a limited number of major sources to a larger number of
diffuse sources, and from only industrial to broader lifestyle activities.  With these shifts  comes
the need to develop new strategies for addressing environmental concerns. As Table 4 shows,
that there is a significant change in policy direction developing.  By increasing awareness of
these environmental trends, local officials can make decisions that support rather than hinder
efforts to protect environmental quality.

                                        Table 4
                       Changing Focus of Environmental Policies
1960-1990
Short-Term Perspective
Large Concentrated Pollution Sources
End-Of-Pipe Management
Command and Control Approach
Autonomous Agencies
Each Local Government Provides Services
Everyone Pays
Public Information
1990-2000
Long-Term Perspective
Small Dispersed Pollution Sources
Pollution Prevention (Source Reduction)
Shared Responsibilities Approach
Consolidation and Agency Coordination
Shared Services/Regionalization
Polluter Pays
Public Involvement
Source: James E. Kundell and Melody F. Dorftnan. Georgia's Environmental Policy: New Directions, Carl Vinson
Institute of Government, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 40 pp., 1994.

       While the focus of environmental policies may be changing, governmental bodies do not
have an unlimited array of options to affect these policies. Government actions will generally
fall into one of the following areas.22

       •      Change tax structure; (i.e., change tax rate, tax an externality, improve collection
              machinery);
                                           30

-------
      •      Alter regulations (i.e., tighten standards, close loopholes, improve enforcement);

      •      Provide or eliminate subsidies and grants (i.e., add or abolish a grant program,
             change formula for allocation);

      •      Adjust agency budgets (i.e., add or subtract from the budget; shift allocations
             from one budget item to another);

      •      Provide information (i.e., require disclosure, require government certification,
             simplify information);

      •      Modify the structure of private rights (i.e., contracts, property, liability,
             Constitutional);

      •      Alter the framework for economic activity (i.e., encourage or discourage
             competition, control prices, alter tax incentives);

      •      Undertake education and consultation activities (i.e., provide technical assistance,
             training);

      •      Institute financing and contracting actions (i.e., create new markets, lease public
             resources, redesign bidding systems, create new procurement practices);

      •      Adopt bureaucratic and political reforms (i.e., agency reorganizations, ethics
             reforms).

It is likely that changing environmental policies will result in changes in all of these options but
certainly much of the focus will be on the use of incentives rather than regulatory options.
Regulations will remain but they will be supplemented with incentives; technical assistance;
public outreach, education, and involvement; public-private partnerships and other forms of
cooperation; and other mechanisms designed to prevent and resolve problems in a cost-effective
manner.23 DeWitt John suggests that the evolving federal role with small communities may
center less on funding and more on the provision of information.24  He contends that federal
policies toward rural areas should center on:

       •      information,

       •      expertise,

       •      civic capacity, and

       •      top-down support for bottom-up initiatives.
                                            31

-------
Thus federal policies should provide the flexibility to enable and support local efforts to address
the problems they face in ways that meet their needs.

       As environmental policies change, three efforts are necessary. First, as environmental
responsibilities devolve from the federal government to states and their subdivisions, the capacity
must exist at these levels to effectively implement sound environmental policies. This is
particularly true for small communities.  Capacity building must focus on the following:

       •      administrative capacity to handle paperwork and administer programs;

       •      financial capacity or having the fiscal resources to carry out the environmental
              responsibilities;

       •      legal authority to carry out effective environmental programs, including
              enforcement authority where appropriate and necessary; and

       •      technical capability to competently carry out environmental responsibilities.

If these capacities are not in place and cannot be provided, it may be necessary to alter
environmental policies to reflect this situation.

       In light of the limited resources available in small communities, the second effort for
sustaining environmental quality is to focus resources on the most pressing environmental
problems. A mechanism is needed to prioritize environmental, as well as other, problems and to
address the most significant first.  Without such an approach, limited resources can be
squandered on relatively insignificant problems while severe problems go unaddressed.  Both
states and local governments in the region should consider adopting an environmental priority
setting process to determine which problems are most pressing in their jurisdiction.1

       When setting priorities, it is important to include representatives of the general public
because the public perception of environmental problems tends to differ from that of scientists.
Table 5 presents the most significant ecological and health risks as identified by EPA's Science
Advisory Board.  Table 6 presents the public's view of environmental problems by  presenting the
percentage of the  respondents who rated each problem as very serious.  Note that the problems in
bold in Table 6 relate to the most significant problems identified by the Science Advisory Board.
These tables suggest that there is a vast difference between what the science community and the
general public perceive as the most important environmental problems.

       The third component for sustaining environmental quality is an environmentally literate
public. It is important to realize that the focus of environmental efforts is changing from point
  + Alabama and Kentucky, as well as the City of Atlanta, have already undertaken priority setting efforts.
Additional information on environmental priority setting can be obtained from the Northeast Center for Comparative
Risk, Vermont Law School, P.O. Box 96, Chelsea Street, South Royalton, VT 05068.

                                           32

-------
                                       Table 5
                              Ecological and Health Risks
                             (EPA Science Advisory Board)
High-Risk Ecological Problems*
       Global climate change
       Stratospheric ozone depletion
       Wildlife habitat alteration and destruction
       Species extinction and loss of biodiversity

Medium-Risk Ecological Problems
       Acid deposition
       Pesticides
       Airborne toxic chemicals
       Toxic chemicals, nutrients, and turbidity in surface water

Low-Risk Ecological Problems
       Oil spills
       Groundwater pollution
       Radioactive isotopes
       Acid runoff to surface water
       Thermal pollution

High-Risk Health Problems
       Indoor air pollution
       Outdoor air pollution
       Worker exposure to industrial or farm chemicals
       Pollutants in drinking water
       Pesticide residues on food
       Toxic chemicals in consumer products

 * Items in each category are not listed in rank order.
                                           33

-------
                                  Table 6
                    Public's Top Environmental Concerns
Problem
Percent
Active hazardous waste sites
Abandoned hazardous waste sites
Water pollution from industrial waste
Occupational exposure to toxic chemicals
Oil spills
Destruction of the ozone layer
Nuclear power plant accidents
Industrial accidents releasing pollutants
Radiation from radioactive wastes
Air pollution from factories
Leaking underground storage tanks
Coastal water contamination
Solid waste and litter
Pesticide risk to farm workers
Water pollution from agricultural runoff
Water pollution from sewage plants
Air pollution from vehicles
Pesticide residues in food
Greenhouse effect
Drinking water contamination
Destruction of wetlands
Acid rain
Water pollution from city runoff
Nonhazardous waste sites
Biotechnology
Indoor air pollution
Radiation from x-rays
Radon in homes
Radiation from microwave ovens
67
65
63
63
60
60
60
58
58
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
50
49
48
46
42
40
35
31
30
22
21
17
13

-------
sources to nonpoint pollution and from industrial sources of pollution to ones that are more
dispersed and related to modern lifestyle. To effectively address these sources of contamination,
public information, education, and involvement are critical. People have to understand why
these dispersed pollution sources can collectively create major problems; what needs to be done
to prevent or correct the problems; and how to effectively address the problems. It is unrealistic
to think that public support and action can be obtained without significant investments in
informing and involving the public. The use of advisory committees, focus groups, and other
measures to incorporate public involvement into the decision-making process will become
increasingly important in the future.

       The public must also be provided with good information.  It is important to have sound
research efforts designed to improve our understanding of problems and how to address them; to
develop accurate databases on environmental conditions; to develop and utilize information
systems to make accurate information more readily available to all users; and to inform the
public about the environment. Better, more accessible information and an informed public will
help small communities more effectively respond to changing environmental policies.

                                     Conclusions

       Small communities may not experience many of the environmental problems faced by
urban areas, but the lack of internal resources and their dispersed nature makes it difficult to
address the problems they do have. They frequently lack financial capacity due to small tax
bases. Consequently, they have few, if any, full-time staff, especially those trained to deal with
environmental matters, nor do they tend to have access to private capability to assist them.  Small
communities are generally older, incomes of their residents more limited, and infrastructure costs
per capita higher than in larger communities.

       Although their internal capacities may be limited, small communities may be called on to
assume a variety of environmental responsibilities including  the provision of certain
environmental services (i.e., drinking water supply, wastewater disposal, solid waste
management) and/or addressing specific environmental problems (i.e., leaking underground
storage tanks, Superfund sites). Additionally they may be called on to comply with
environmental review requirements for proposed activities under the National Environmental
Policy Act or state environmental assessment laws or to obtain a Section 404 permit for activities
that alter wetlands. As a result, there is a schism between what small communities are asked to
do and their ability to do it.

       This report presents environmental trends in the South and describes the changing nature
of environmental policies. It attempts to discern those forces at work that influence a small
community's ability to address environmental matters. The mission before us is to identify
strategies and to create a framework for EPA and other institutions to better assist small
communities in carrying out environmental responsibilities and resolving  environmental
problems.


                                           35

-------
                                    Endnotes

1. EPA. Small Town Environmental Planning Program: Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.,
p. 5.

2. Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Small Town Task Force, Washington,
D.C., 1995, p. 1.

3. Mark K. McBeth and Richard H. Foster. "Rural Environmental Attitudes," Environmental
Management, 1994, pp. 401-411.

4. James E. Kundell and Deanna L. Ruffer. Environmental Trends: Implications for the South,
Conference of Southern County Associations, Atlanta, Georgia, 19 pp., 1994.

5. Osha Gray Davidson. "Those Little Town Blues," Utne Reader, pp. 111-115, May-June 1993.

6. Leslie King and Glenn Davis. "Local Responses to Rapid Rural Growth: New York and
Vermont Cases," APA Journal, pp. 181-191, Spring 1989.

7. DeWitt John. "Where is Rural Policy Headed?" Annals, AAPSS, pp. 22-33, September 1995.

8. DeWitt John. See note 7.

9. John E. Petersen. "Paradoxes Aplenty—and Guess Who Gets to Pay," Governing, September
1993, p. 78.

10. Bruce Beck, personal communication, October, 19, 1993.

11. Todd Rasmussen, personal communication, October  17, 1993.

12. Bruce Beck, See note 10.

13. Bruce Beck, See note 10.

14. Todd Rasmussen, See note 11.

15. Jeff Jackson, personal communication, October 20, 1993.

16. Jeff Jackson. See note 15.

17. Jeff Jackson. See note 15.

18. Jeff Jackson. See note 15.
                                        36

-------
19. Judith C. Hackett and Terry Busson. Managing Rural Infrastructure: State Assistance to
Small and Rural Governments for Public Works, The Council of State Governments, Lexington,
Kentucky, 1986.

20. Judith C. Hackett and Terry Busson. See note 19.

21. Frank M. D'ltri and Lois G. Wolfson. Rural Groundwater Contamination, Lewis Publishers,
Inc., Chelsea, Michigan, 1987.

22. Eugene Bardach. Policy Analysis: A Handbook for Practice, Berkeley Academic Press,
Berkeley, California, 41 pp., 1994.

23. Daniel J. Fiorino. "Can Problems Shape Priorities? The Case of Risk-Based Environmental
Planning," Public Administration Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, January/February 1990, pp. 82-90.

24. DeWitt John. See note 7.
                                           37

-------