> A \
9
The RELATIONSHIP between
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
and LAND USE
THE PRESIDENT'S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
and
THE PRESIDENT'S AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
The RELATIONSHIP between
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
and LAND USE
A Report to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency of
recent meetings held by the President's
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
and the President's Air Quality Advisory
Board.
March 27-31,1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington D. C. 20460
-------
THE PRESIDENT’S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
Chai man
Executive Secretary
}Wnorable William D. Ruckelshaus
Administ rator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Mr. Alan Levin
Office of the Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Me mb era
Ex Officio Member
Honorable Elliot L. Richardson
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
Washington, D. C. 20201
Dr. Melbourne R. Carriker
Director, Systematics—Ecology Program
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Mr. William D. Farr
Pres ident
Farr Farms Company
Box 878
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Mr. Ray W. Ferguson
California Water Commissioner
218 Deodar Street
Ontario, California 91762
Mr. Thomas W. Gleason
International President
International Longshoremen’s
Association, AFL—CIO
17 Battery Place, Suite 1530
New York, New York 10004
Dr. Wallace W. Harvey, Jr.
Memorial Clinic
Manteo, North Carolina 27954
Mr. Byron P. Jordan
Executive Vice President
French Jordan, Inc.
1010 Common Street, Suite 1065
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
Mr. Irvan F. Mendenhall
President
Daniel, Mann, Johnson &
3250 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California
Mr. Parker E. Miller
A—6 Tower Isle Apartments
17400 Gulf Boulevard
N. Redington Beach, Plorida 33708
Mrs. Samuel Rome
Environmental Quality Chairman
League of Women Voters of Illinois
1421 Forest Avenue
River Forest, Illinois 60305
Mendenhal 1
90010
-1-
-------
PRESIDENT’S AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
Chairman
Executive Secretary
Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dr. Arnold 0. Beckman
Chairman of the Board
Beckman Instruments, Inc.
2500 Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, California 92632
Members
Mr. Alan Levin
Office of the Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Mr. Joseph Kovago
Senior Mechanical Engineer
Atlantic City Electric Company
1600 Pacific Avenue
Atlantic City, New Jersey 08404
Mr. W. Donham Crawford
President
Edison Electric Institute
90 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Dr. E. Alan Lohse
Senior Scientist Program
Gulf Universities Research
1611 Tremont Street
Galveston, Texas 77550
Coordinator
Consortium
Dr. Coleman D. Donaldson
President and Senior Consultant
Aeronautical Research Association
of Princeton, Inc.
50 Washington Rd.
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Mr. William D. Evers
Attorney at Law, Miller, Groezinger,
Pettit Evers
650 California Street
San Francisco, California 94108
Mrs. Sibyl C. Hamilton
Director, Public Information
Dallas County Junior College District
Dallas, Texas 75202
Mr. E. Joseph Hillings
National Airlines
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Professor Matthew Holden, Jr.
Professor of Political Science
322 North Hall
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Mr. Thomas L. Kimball
Executive Vice President
National Wildlife Federation
1412 - 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Mr. A. Mitchell McConnell, Jr.
Attorney at Law
Barnett, Greenebaum,
510 W. Broadway
Suite 1000
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Mr. Jack B. Olson
Olson Boat Company
105 Broadway
Wisconson Dells, Wisconsin
53965
Mr. Homer E. Patton
International Secretary-Treasurer
International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers-Iron-Ship Builders-Black-
smiths-Forgers and Helpers Union
565 New Brotherhood Building
8th and State Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Mr. Joseph K. Prince
Chief Technical Advisor and Special
Pollution Investigator
Attorney General’s Office
State of Illinois
6401 W. 52nd Street
Chicago, Illinois 60638
Mr. G. Don Sullivan
Consultant on Environmental Matters
American Mining Congress
Ring Building
Washington, D. C. 20036
Martin, McConnell
-11—
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFVICEOF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
June 22, 1972
Dear Mr. Administrator:
I have the honor to transmit to you the report of the
joint meeting held by the President’s Air Quality Advisory
Board and the President’s Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board on March 27-31, 1972.
As you know, the Boards met in joint session for the
first time to study the relationship between land use plan-
fling and control and environmental protection. Included as
an appendix to this report are the recommendations to you
developed by the two Boards. They resulted following
presentations by knowledgeable individuals in land use
representing a cross section of the nation. In addition,
the Boards’ findings are also based on information pre-
sented by Federal agencies and an air tour which allowed
the Boards to view first hand some of the complex problems
connected with land use.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Levin, Executive Secretary
President’s Air and Water Advisory
Boards
-------
I NTRODUCT ION
The President’s Water Pollution Control Advisory Board is a statutory
body, established under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1956. There are nine members, appointed by the President, who serve
three years each. The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare is
an ex officio member. The President’s Air Quality Advisory Board is
a statutory body authorized under the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1967. There are fifteen members, appointed by the President, who serve
three years each.
The Chairman of both Boards is the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. The mission of both Boards provided by law is to
advise, consult with and make recommendations to the Administrator,
and,in the case of the Air Board,to the President when deemed necessary,
on matters of policy relating to the activities and functions of the
Administrator under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the
Clean Air Act. Under these authorities the Boards regularly examine
all phases of the national water and air pollution problem and from
time to time hold public meetings to hear the views of individual
citizens, Government at its various levels, and private agencies and
groups. Such meetings may be separate with each Board meeting
individually or joint meetings involving both Boards depending on the
desires of the Chairman and Board members, and issues to be studied.
The Advisory Boards hold three to five meetings a year each. Usually
one or two of these are held in Washington, D. C. for the purpose of
reviewing water or air plans, policy and progress with the EPA
Administrator. The other meetings are held in various regions of
the country at the call of the Chairman, or at the request of
individual Board members or a State governor. The regional meetings,
because they are open to the public, focus attention on particular
city, State or regional problems and stimulate action for pollution
control in problem areas under review.
-2-
-------
MONDAY, MARCH 27, 1972, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA :
The first joint meeting ever held by the President’s Air Quality
Advisory Board and the President’s Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board was convened by Mr. A. James, Barnes, Assistant to the Admin-
istrator, Environmental Protection Agency, who served as Chairman
in the absence of Administrator William D. Ruckeishaus.
Air Board members present: Mr. W. Donham Crawford, New York, New York;
Dr. Coleman D. Donaldson, Princeton, New Jersey; Mrs. Sibyl C. Hamilton,
Dallas, Texas; Mr. E. Joseph Hillings, Washington, D. C.; Professor
Matthew Holden, Jr., Madison, Wisconsin; Mr. Thomas L. Kimball,
Washington, D. C.; Mr. Joseph Kovago, Atlantic City, New Jersey:
Dr. E. Alan Lohse, Galveston, Texas; Mr. A. Mitchell McConnell, Jr.,
Louisville, Kentucky; Mr. Homer E. Patton, Kansas City, Kansas;
Mr. Joseph K. Prince, Chicago, Illinois; and Mr. C. Don Sullivan,
Washington, D. C. Not present were: Dr. Arnold 0. Beckman,
Fullerton, California; Mr. William D. Evers, San Francisco, California;
and Mr. Jack B. Olson, Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin.
Water Board members present: Dr. Melbourne R. Carriker, Woods Hole,
Massachusetts; Mr. William D. Farr, Greeley, Colorado; Mr. Ray W.
Ferguson, Ontario, California; Dr. Wallace W. Harvey, Jr., Manteo,
North Carolina; Mr. Byron P. Jordan, New Orleans, Louisiana;
Mr. Irvan F. Mendenhall, Los Angeles, California; Mrs. Samuel Rome,
River Forest, Illinois. Not present were: Mr. Thomas W. Gleason,
New York, New York; and Mr. Parker E. Miller, N. Redington Beach,
Florida.
After providing background information and the statutory requirements
of the two Boards, Mr. Barnes introduced the Board members. He then
briefly set the tone for the meeting on land use by explaining that
at first EPA took a rather narrow view of its role, i.e., to control
air, water and other pollution. However, EPA became increasingly
aware of the importance of relating the overall environment to land
use. The objectives of the joint meeting is exploratory in nature
and to assist the Boards in obtaining a better understanding of these
relationships, Mr. Barnes pointed out. He also outlined some of the
issues the Boards might be considering during their deliberations, as
follows:
1. What should EPA be doi’ng on its own?
2. What should EPA be doing in coordination with other agencies?
3. Need for Legislation.
4. Need for further study.
-3-
-------
Following Mr. Barnes’ opening remarks, Mr. Dwain Winters and
Mr. William Day of the National Youth Advisory Board (YAB) pre-
sented a series of slides and a description on consumptive land
use in the North Central United States which pointed toward
corrective policies and solutions. The Youth Advisory Board is
the successor to the Student Council on Pollution and the Environ-
ment (SCOPE) which had been created by the Department of the
Interior in 1969. The project described by Messrs. Winters and
Day was conceived under the SCOPE program and executed with the
assistance of EPA Region VII in Kansas City, Missouri.
After the slide presentation, Mr. Lance King of the Youth Advisory
Board discussed some of its present and future activities with
regard to land use. He explained that the EPA Administrator had
assigned to the YAB the task of looking into the multiple inter-
locking problem of land management from the standpoint of how they
affect EPA ’s existing responsibilities. Mr. King told the two
Boards that the YAB had developed a timetable for the project and
will endeavor to study the various institutional and legal
mechanisms controlling land use and governmental activities having
land use implications. The YAB hopes to issue a preliminary report
to the Administrator by June 1, 1972.
Mr. Paul DeFalco, Jr., Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, the
host region for the joint meeting, introduced Miss Susan Durbin
from the Region’s Office of Air and Water Programs who discussed
how the role of technology and pursuit of increased production has
in some cases caused abuse of land and depletion of our natural
resources. She suggested that technology cannot cure all ills and
that perhaps major life style changes are needed. Miss Durbin
also emphasized that traditionally land use has been a local matter
and that as a result, decisions are often made in small increments
without full realization by local decision makers of possible
unfavorable ramifications of such decisions. Finally, Miss Durbin
discussed the Federal and State roles. She pointed out that by
their nature such governments attack problems piecemeal, are single
purpose and often in conflict. As an example she cited the plethora
of fund sources available from the States and Federal governments
some of which fight pollution which in turn stimulates growth and
lacking controls, may end up polluting more than before. Miss Durbin
concluded with the view that somehow, all the various programs and
monies have to be coordinated so that land use controls become a
more lasting way to conserve environmental values.
The final speaker from EPA Region IX was Mr. John Wise who presented
aerial photographs and conducted a pre-tour briefing prior to a fly-
over for the Boards to view first hand some of the problems connected
with land use control. Mr. Wise told the Boards that the critical
-4-
-------
factors of the overflight would be: (1) premption of land use, i.e.,
suburban homes, second home sites, etc., (2) introduction of people
and autos, and (3) water resources development as it relates to the
agricultural industry.
In the afternoon, the Boards departed by aircraft on a 1400 mile
flyover which included the Bay Area, Sacramento Delta, foothills,
Lake Tahoe, valleys, desert, Los Angeles and the coastline. Guides
for the tour were Mr. Wise and Dr. J. Herbert Snydor, Professor of
Agricultural Economics, University of California at Davis. Some of the
observations from the flyover included: San Jose obscured by smog;
scarring of the land to accommodate housing and resulting in soil
erosion and sedimentation; forested land cut up by roads; 400,000
acres of delta country, long valuable as an agricultural area, get-
ting into recreation uses and marina developments; the traversing of
virgin land by the California Aqueduct and a new interstate highway;
problems resulting from disposal of brine and other waste products
from oil field drilling operations; housing developments in the desert
all competing for a limited water supply, air pollution in the
Los Angeles Basin; and overpumping of ground water creating a serious
problem in the Santa Clara River Valley.
The Boards were able to observe readily that it was virtually impossible
to view anything not affected by development.
TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28-29, 1972 :
On Tuesday and Wednesday, March 28-29, 1972, the Boards held public
meetings in San Francisco and Los Angeles respectively. The
participants included invited speakers with expertise in land use
as related to the environment who presented statements before the
Boards.
Tuesday’s meeting was opened by Chairman William D. Ruckeishaus who
introduced the Board members and swore in the following new members
of the Air Quality Advisory Board: Mrs. Sibyl C. Hamilton,
Dr. E. Alan Lohse, Professor Matthew Holden, Jr., Mr. A. Mitchell
McConnell, Jr., Mr. Homer E. Patton, Dr. Coleman D. Donaldson, and
Mr. Joseph K. Prince.
Chairman Ruckeishaus then made a brief opening statement wherein he
emphasized to the Boards and the public that the nation must recognize
the relationship between land use and air and water. He pointed out
that every time an action is taken to control air and water pollution
it has a great impact on land use. Chairman Ruckelshaus concluded by
stating that the meeting of the Boards was exploratory in nature and he
expected them to reach broad conclusions.
-5-
-------
Because of the considerable number of statements presented, it has
not been possible to include summaries of all of them in this report.
However, following are highlights from a selected number. A full
list of speakers and their organizations is attached to this report
as Appendix 1.
Mrs. Rebecca Hanmer Nerenberg, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mrs. Nerenberg noted that EPA is charged with pollution control in
six areas - water, air, solid wastes, pesticides, radiation and noise,
but that all of these areas relate to broader questions of land use,
environmental quality, and natural resources utilization. She
emphasized that stoppage of one kind of environmental pollution might
invite other types unless safeguards are established. She stated
that EPA has become increasingly aware that ecologically sound land
planning and management are vital to implementing pollution control
mandates and the agency will not be able to perform its mission
fully without attacking questions of economic and social growth,
and urban—industrial development. In many cases, she said there are
not effective technological solutions to pollution problems and
land-use controls are the best alternative.
Mrs. Nerenberg suggested that the answer was not in waiting for new
institutions but in changing existing ones so that various agencies look
at actions within a total environmental context. She expressed
optimism that this can be accomplished under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, which provides an environmental mandate to all
Federal agencies and a means of coordinating a wide variety of views.
She pointed out that legislation also is pending in Congress to pro-
vide money to the States for land use planning, along with uniform
Federal standards that the States would be required to observe.
Mr. Martin Convisser, Director, Office of Environmental Quality,
Ii. S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C .
Mr. Convisser opened by stating that transDortation si’gn1 ficantly
impacts the environment directly, and indirectly as a result of its
equally important effects on land use. He explained that despite the
pervasiveness of the existing transportation network, each new addition
can have a powerful influence on the location and shape of economic
activity and land use, particularly where there are complementary
forces at work. He cited urban areas where the impetus to growth is
strongest and the example of development adjacent to the beltways
that have been built around most major cities within the past 15 years.
Mr. Convisser summarized some of the Federal transportation legi’s1ati’on
-6-
-------
(1) Section 134 of the Federal-Air Highway Act of 1962 required,
as a pre-requisite for Federal highway construction grants,
the development and utilization of a comprehensive trans-
portation planning process In metropolitan areas tied into
overall metropolitan planning. The current level of Federal
highway planning grants for this purpose is approximately
$38 million annually.
(2) The “Airways and Airports Development Act of 1970” authorized
airport systems grants which enable a metropolitan area to
look at total airport needs in relation to land use. This
encourages more rational decisions on airport location to
best suit the needs of the entire area.
(3) Under the 1970 Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act,
environmental and land use considerations must be included
in the Department’s decision making process. Projects
requiring UMTA grants or loans under the Act must be
consistent with the official plans for the comprehensive
development of the urban area.
In assessing how well these statutory provisions have worked, particu-
larly the Section 134 process, Mr. Convisser pointed out that Section
134 has stimulated a great deal of useful transportation and land use
planning in metropolitan areas; however, in practice, transportation
planning and implementation have often been the driving force to
development, and broader community land use goals have not always been
clearly articulated or made operational. He explained that in large
part this is due to the fact that there is rarely a single govern-
mental agency, or even a single body politic within a metropolitan
area, which has the authority to implement community land use goals
for the area. Conversely, there is at least one transportation
agency operating in each metropolitan area which generally has
adequate authority, geographic scale and funding to undertake planning
and implement its plans. With the increased funding provided by the
1970 mass transportation legislation there is now a better oppoflunity .
for urban areas to plan for and implement the transportation system
best suited to their development and land use goals. Nevertheless,
the absence of metropolitan institutions with the authority to com-
prehensively plan and implement policies and programs for development
and land use at the metropolitan scale remains a serious obstacle.
Mr. Convisser expressed his support for the President’s proposed Land
Use Act and indicated that another approach would be through the
development of a National Growth Policy which would seek to exert an
influence on the shape of national growth and land use even more
positively than could be accomplished through the proposed Land Use Bill.
-7-
-------
Mr. Convisser discussed some of the other programs of DOT with
respect to land use and told the Boards that even before the
National Environmental Policy Act, the Secretary had stopped a
major transportation project in large part because of land use
considerations and the effects on the environment, i.e., the
South Florida Jetport. DOT is trying to prevent such future con-
troversies by (1) introducing land use and other environmental
considerations at the earliest possible stage and (2) providing an
orderly process of interagency coordination and public comment.
Mr. Convisser then turned to some of the air and water quality
activities of DOT. He emphasized that the Department has been work-
ing closely with EPA in reviewing transportation implications of
State implementation plans to achieve ambient air quality standards.
The Department also has research underway specifically related to
emissions and is exploring costs and other issues associated with
mass production of advanced automotive propulsion systems for
private autos should they become necessary. With respect to water
quality, Mr. Convisser concluded by stating that the Coast Guard
is aggressively enforcing appropriate sections of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act in the marine environment. It has an action
program underway to prevent oil spills and is conducting research
toward controlling spills.
Mr. Robert H. Kirby, Director of State Planning and Community Affairs,
State of Virginia :
Mr. Kirby represented Governor Linwood Holton of Virginia and spoke
from the standpoint of a chief executive with experience in land use
planning and regulations as they relate to programs of environmental
protection.
Mr. Kirby emphasized that we must concern ourselves with the totality
of man’s environment - pollution, ecology, population and the urban
environment, thus the importance of planning for the use of land
resources. He told the Boards that the States are re-evaluating
their positions on growth and development. The concern is with how
land is used, the impact on the environment and the effect on the
social and economic characteristics of citizens. This new emphasis
raises many questions for the Governor and the State, Mr. Kirby con-
tinued. Some of the questions include:
(1) Is a policy of unlimited growth and development one that
should be considered in light of the possible conflict with
the environment?
(2) Should the State seek to limit growth and development
ultimately identifying areas or corridors in which to con-
centrate development? To what degree would this reduce the
damage to the environment?
-8-
-------
(3) Would a policy of limited growth mean an empltas’is on
medium size cities as opposed to larger or smaller cities?
Does It mean that new towns will be encouraged?
Is this choice politically feasible assuming it is environ-
mentally sound?
Mr. Kirby explained that in the past it has been local governments who
have made decisions on land use, on zoning and subdivision control.
With recognition that some problems transcend the jurisdictional
boundaries of cities and counties there has been a shift in recent
years to planning at the regional level. Even more recently, there
has been a greater emphasis placed upon the State itself as a
mechanism for guiding and controlling land use. Some 9 or 10 States
have instituted some means of control.
Mr. Kirby proceeded to discuss some of Virginia’s problems, i.e. a
dynamic shift away from agricultural uses and towards urban develop-
ment. This growth and change in land use has put tremendous
pressures upon the local governments to provide the services demanded
of them. However, through a common partnership, the State and its
local governments have begun to rectify past mistakes. Since 1968,
emphasis has been placed on the promotion of regional planning.
Legislation was recently passed calling for protection of Virginia’s
wetlands through a system of local and State controls. Local zoning
boards will review and rule upon applications for use of wetlands.
The question that will confront the Governor in the coming months is
whether or not the State should concern itself with the implementation
of a State-wide zoning ordinance to protect critical environmental
areas. He suggested that one method of protecting and preserving
such areas is outright purchase by the State.
In protecting such areas, one means that appeals to the State is a
tax to recapture any increase in value associated with the development
of public facilities in or near such areas. Mr. Kirby mentioned a
final point on land use controls. In the near future, the State will
begin to explore the relationships between State spending and
development in the commonwealth. Their objective is to develop a
series of policies or strategies for development, similar in concept
to an urban growth strategy. Through these policies the expenditure
of State funds will be related to clearly defined State goals.
Mr. Kirby concluded his statements by discussing some of the Federal
requirements. In particular, he emphasized the importance of
environmental impact statements, but indicated that completing such
statements are staggering in terms of manpower and financial resources
if one is to do a good job. Further, the State supports legislative
initiatives from Congress and the Administration on land use and
coastal zone management. However, Mr. Kirby stated some of these
initiatives may place too stringent requirements on the States in the
development of their plans and programs. He encouraged latitude and
flexibility. He also feels that the President’s proposals for
-9-
-------
reductions in Federal funds if the States do not establish an accep-
table land use program may be too harsh. Mr. Kirby would like to see
more positive means explored to encourage land use planning and more
research undertaken on the complex interrelationships between the
social, economic and physical use of the environment. In the dis-
cussion that followed Mr. Kirby’s statement, he emphasized that the
States be charged with the major responsibility for enforcing wetlands
legislation and not have it come from the Federal government.
Mr. Michael McCloskey, Executive Director, Sierra Club, San Francisco,
California :
Mr. McCloskey emphasized that land use controls are essential if we
are to reach our goals for pollution control, and he hopes that EPA
finds some way to assure that land use controls complement its mission.
In comparing land use controls with pollution controls he pointed out
that adverse land-use decisions are not nearly as reversible as adverse
pollution decisions. There is another problem in comparing the two
areas, Mr. McCloskey told the Boards. That is, conservationists have
traditionally felt that local jurisdictions were hopeless and have
looked toward escalating the level of decision making. However, he
believes that as we escalate the level of decision making, the sharper
grasp of land planning realities begins to shift away and the planning
exercise becomes one of paper shuffling. The one answer that appears
to offer some promise is that of regionalism, and he cited the positive
aspects of the California Bay Area Conservation and Development
Commission. Mr. McCloskey said environmentalists are advocating the
same approach for the California coastline, and that this may be a
formula which will work throughout the country.
Mr. McCloskey turned to the question of locating subdivisions,
housing, i.e. where do you put people? Mr. McCloskey feels that we
will have to change our premises on the question. One approach,
he believes, woUld be population stabilization Another changed
goal he suggested is getting away from transients as a feature of our
society, and build more permanently. He agrees with the report of
the President’s population committee that if people are to be relocated,
we try to concentrate in the medium-sized cities.
Mr. McCloskey turned to the types of specific proposals, environmen-
talists are supporting in the area of land use. In the field of
private land use, they are supporting those bills that would provide
incentives to the States to reassume the land use planning functions
which have been delegated to the counties. They also support
coastal legislation as well as national land use planning legislation,
but they do not feel pending bills are strong enough. In the area
of private activity, environmental organizations such as the Sierra
Club feel that the power plant siting bills now pending before
Congress are too weak. With regard to strip mining, Mr. McCloskey
sees the same problem, that is the Administration’s bills would
-10-
-------
encourage the States to do the job. He pointed out that the States
have not done the job and that environmentalists want the abolition
of strip mining. With regard to public land reform there is a need
for a revised act for the Bureau of Land Management; mining law
reform is another crucial area, Mr. McCloskey stated.
Turning to the program of Federal land acquisitions, organizations
such as the Sierra Club have worked over the years to increase the
funding for this program, but the subtle process of erosion has
occurred in recent years to reduce the share for Federal land
acquisition. He also discussed some of the current controversies
in the area of Federal land management, e.g. the amount of grazing
that ought to be permitted.
Finally, Mr. McCloskey mentioned the Federal developmental programs
for land use. He is encouraged by DOT’s support of a proposal for
widening the Highway Trust Fund; he feels this will be most helpful
in urban areas by shifting the emphasis from freeways to mass
transit. Environmentalists have problems with other types of
Federal developmental projects, such as water projects, the Atomic
Energy Commission, etc.
In summarization, McCloskey stated that while generally environmental
organizations have had greater faith in the Federal government’s
responsiveness, they would welcome a greater responsiveness in the
area of land use at the State and local levels.
Mr. Ralph Sargent, Jr., Vice President, Public Affairs, Public Service
Company of Colorado, Denver, Colorado :
Mr. Sargent spoke from the viewpoint of power plant siting and other
land uses as possible or potential sources of environmental pollution.
Mr. Sargent stated that the electric utility industry has two general
types of environmental impact, one positive and one negative. On
the positive side, the industry provides its customers with energy
in a form which is clean, quiet and flexible at the point of use.
On the negative side, the process of providing electricity impacts
on air quality, water quality and land. He pointed out that as a
nation, we have developed a general approach to regulating impacts of
industry on air and water, but that land use problems are different.
That is, we depend on local governmental units, operating under a
zoning philosophy codified in the 1920s to carry out land use policies.
Mr. Sargent feels there is a sound ecological basis for this localized
approach, for our knowledge of land problems is so limited that we
have dealt with them on a case by case, site by site basis. The
difficulty with this approach in today’s world, Mr. Sargent told the
Boards, is exemplified by the problems facing the electric utility
—11—
-------
industry in gaining acceptance for locations needed to provide
service to customers. Particularly, in the more densely populated
areas of the country, it has become more and more difficult to
build power plants or other kinds of facilities which society as
a whole requires. Mr. Sargent emphasized that our present means for
making land use decisions are not helpful since they allow those who
oppose a particular facility, whatever the merits of the proposal
from an overall viewpoint, virtually to stop it. He stated his
attitude and many of his colleagues is that, as a society, we must
develop better means for making and implementing land use decisions.
He indicated that some utility companies have experimented with open
planning, in which governmental bodies and citizens’ organizations
are brought into the site planning process. In most cases it is
still too early to judge their effectiveness, but Mr. Sargent encour-
ages this type of experimentation.
Mr. Sargent discussed pending legislation and recommended that any
national land use policy should provide that basic land use decisions
not be made by the Federal government, but at the State or regional
level. It also seems essential, Mr. Sargent asserted, that a land
use policy be comprehensive, not focused on a single element such as
coastal zones or power plant siting. He concluded with an opinion that
several of the bills before the Congress seem to fulfill these require-
ments and he looks forward to observing the discussion and testing
they will face as they move through the legislative process.
Mr. Thomas Bradley, City Councilman, Los Angeles, California :
Mr. Bradley discussed the critical failure of the balkanized approach
to land use decisions made by local government officials and the
failure on too many occasions to face up to the consequences of those
decisions. He stressed that too often those decisions have been shaped
by undue pressure and influence by local interest groups, but more often
by land developers and special interests promoting their economic best
interest. However, he pointed out that bringing State government into
such decision making would not automatically improve their quality.
The integrity of the elected official at whatever level is the important
point Mr. Bradley said.
Mr. Bradley endorsed the concept of a national growth and development
policy and this policy must fit into others adopted by State, regional
and local governmental units. A strong policy statement by the State
taking an overview into the future is essential in developing a viable
growth and development policy for environmental goals, he told the
Boards.
-12-
-------
Mr. Bradley cited California as presenting some of the best or
worst examples of land use development where the decisions were
made, not by city planners or elected officials, but were dictated
by developers, highway construction advocates and other narrow and
special interest groups. Some of these decisions have drained
industrial wealth and resources from the inner cities to the suburbs.
In short, Mr. Bradley pointed out the jobs are moving beyond the
geographic reach of those who need them most. The pattern of flight
and abandonment of the central cities by business and industry pro-
duces a domino effect as the people, the jobs, the shopping centers
and other activities begin to fail.
With regard to pollution problems, Mr. Bradley emphasized that the
city of Los Angeles has been required to strip the land of its coal
and pollute the air as they have burned it to produce the electrical
power to supply the urbanized demands of the city. A shortage of pure
water is also predicted for the year 2000 as the State runs out of
natural waters. His comments, Mr. Bradley stated, are the reflection
of the growing belief that urban growth cannot take a desirable form
when shaped by conflicting regulations of a host of local governments
and by the unregulated locational decisions of private enterprise.
Mr. Bradley stressed that if we continued to leave our patterns of
urbanization to chance, we shall invite environmental, economic and
social chaos.
Mr. Bradley continued by emphasizing that many of the problems can be
dealt with more effectively on a regional basis, but whenever this
issue is raised the cry of home rule Is heard. He believes it is
still possible to protect the virtues of home rule and at the same
time assign to regional bodies the responsibility to deal with those
problems which are strictly regional in nature. Mr. Bradley said
that unless cities fulfill their responsibilities in dealing with
land use problems, they will find themselves preempted by State govern-
ment. Local elected officials should have a major role in the develop-
ment of State plans that deal with land use planning. Mr. Bradley
outlined a number of recommendations
(1) A policy pertaining to the growth and distribution of
population within the State with the purpose of avoiding
excessive congestion and dispersing the population through-
out all the land is needed.
(2) Public facilities such as water systems, open space, sewers
and highways should be used as tools to implement an urban
development policy.
(3) The effective use of regional councils of governments is
essential in bringing together a comprehensive approach to
solving multi-jurisdictional problems.
-13-
-------
(4) Consideration for the impact upon central cities must be
uppermost in the minds of policy decision makers so as to
avoid drawing off productive enterprise from the core city
and separating the citizens from their job sites.
(5) Tax inducements, assessment procedures depreciation
schedules should be designed to encourage upgrading of
inner city plants and sites rather than their abandonment.
(6) Land bank programs in which local jurisdictions acquire
large parcels of property, plan and then sell them to
developers at their enhanced value would do much to dis-
courage land speculation and would help in an orderly
development.
(7) Only through the inducement of massive Federal dollars and
reasonable conditions attached to those allocations can local
government be prodded into doing the job.
Mr. Bradley concluded his remarks by stating that the examples of
failures are limitless, but the possibilities for the future are
great. Although at one time the attraction of the cities was the
desire to live a good life, they are increasingly raising the question
about a decent survival. Mr. Bradley believes that we can and must
change our ways of living and devise new priorities if we are to
secure the future.
Mr. Robert T. Jorvig, Executive Director, Metropolitan Council of the
Twin Cities Area, St. Paul, Minnesota :
Mr. Jorvig spoke on land use as it relates to environmental protection
from the standpoint of regional government.
He explained that in Minnesota and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
a unique regional structure of government has been established which
offers an opportunity to develop a metropolitan wide land use and growth
policy with substantial tools to translate these policies into develop-
ment action. Mr. Jorvig outlined a few issues the Council has been
considering with the hope that they would be helpful to the Boards in
developing recommendations:
(1) Governmental Structures - The Council is a unique form of
local government established to coordinate the overall social,
physical, and economic development of the Twin Cities Metro-
politan Area. It is not a general purpose government, nor
is it an operating regional agency. Rather, It is an adminis-
trative agency with powers to provide for the overall planning
-14-
-------
and development of regional needs and services of the Seven
County Metropolitan Area and with sufficient authority in
some areas, such as sewers, to assure that the functional
agencies responsible for operations carry out the general
plans developed by the Council.
(2) Development of Growth Policy-Regional Council Role - The
merging of environmental concerns with land development
process requires the establishment of an urban growth policy
at the national, State, and local level. A growth policy can
be approached in two ways: build it from the top down, that
is, from the Federal-to the State-to the local level; or
using an appropriate local unit, proceed building-block
fashion to the State, and then the Federal level. Both
approaches are useful and both need to be done if we are
to achieve the best use and most equitable distribution
of the scarce resources available to us as a nation, State,
region, or locale. Using the metropolitan or regional
framework, Mr. Jorvig stated some of the criteria if we are
to apply land-use planning and control.
(a) Know the area-physically, socially, economically, and
environmentally.
(b) Forecast and project the area’s growth and makeup.
(c) Develop a set of indices to judge the capability of
the metropolitan area to sustain the projected growth.
(3) Fiscal Disparities - An essential pre-requisite to the effec-
tive implementation of any land use and environmental control
program is the resolution of fiscal disparities problems
among local governmental units and the development of a region-
wide fiscal capability to carry out a region-wide capital
improvements program. The heavy reliance on the real estate
tax places all governmental units in coffipetition for
development, which adversely affects the capability of
governmental units at all levels to make sound development
and environmental decisions. The Metropolitan Council
addressed itself to this problem as an early priority in
its planning programs. This effort was supported by both
governmental and citizens organizations and by the Citizens
League in the area. The Legislature, in turn, supported a
unique approach to begin to resolve this problem through the
passage of the Fiscal Disparities Bill in 1971. The Legislation
provides for a metropolitan-wide sharing of a portion of all of
—15—
-------
the future commercial and industrial tax base within the
seven county area. Porty per cent of the tax base of all
such new development is placed into a metropolitan pool
and then redistributed to all governmental units based on a
ratio of per capita need in relation to per capita assessed
valuation. Sixty per cent of such tax base is retained by
the individual communities to support community service
requirements for such development. As a result of this
legislation, there has already been some indication of
communities making development decisions based on the
best land use considerations, rather than economic
considerations.
(4) Policy Implementation Tools - In spite of substantial regional
authority for policy formulation and implementation for
transportation, parks, utilities, etc., projections for the
Twin Cities Area indicate substantial continuation of urban
sprawl. This raises questions as to the need for substantial
land development controls at the regional level. Such con-
trols have traditionally been resisted, and have usually been
exercised at the municipal level. Therefore, the Council
does not see these problems resolved through the establishment
of comprehensive development controls at the regional level.
Rather, they see it happening through limited extension of
control of regional support services and through the provision
of incentives to both local government and the private developer.
In conclusion, Mr. Jorvig stated that the Council is still struggling
with the same issues the Boards are addressing and he hoped the
strategies the Council is pursuing will be of some help in the Boards’
deliberations. He urged that the several Federal departments make
every effort to standardize their program requirements and provide
consistent long range funding commitments (3-5 years). Mr. Jorvig
indicated that multiple standards and changes in program practices
make it extremely difficult to accomplish the kind of required program
coordination he has suggested.
Mr. Alan M. Voorhees, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc.,
McLean, Virginia :
Mr. Voorhees spoke from the standpoint of land use and transportation
planning and control as related to environmental quality.
Mr. Voorhees opened his remarks by stating that because pollution of
air, water, and other environmental resources must be attacked on a
broad and comprehensive basis there is a strong requirement for land
use and transportation planning to assure that this goal is effectively
- 16-
-------
met. The primary methods for assaulting the pollution problem
today are through the implementation of direct controls at the
source, through improvements in operating techniques, and through
developments in technology. There has long been a need,
Mr. Voorhees continued, for interrelating the land use and trans-
portation planning process with the legal enforcement procedures
for protecting air and water resources. Planning literature and
academic planners have advocated this approach but lack of knowledge
and enforcement procedures for environmental planning have precluded
effective action. Mr. Voorhees then discussed some of the broad
techniques which can presently be applied and could lead to
significant improvements to air and water quality over the next
few years, as follows:
(1) Land Development and Density Patterns.
(2) Spatial arrangement and location of building and site
activities.
(3) Planning of Transportation Systems.
(4) Design of Facilities.
(5) Operation of Facilities.
Mr. Voorhees also discussed a number of factors which must be considered
to improve air and water quality, as follows:
(1) Institutional.
(2) Legal.
(3) Financial.
(4) Administrative.
(5) Technical.
All of these interact in the planning process, and are required to
effectuate an implementation program.
He stated that the planning process must reflect:
(1) Unique environmental problems of the area.
(2) Environmental impacts at the initial stage.
(3) Input from other agencies and environmental groups.
-17-
-------
(4) The trade-offs of the benefits and costs of all elements
in the plan.
(5) Continuous communication with area leadership.
(6) Interdisciplinary staffing.
Mr. Voorhees concluded by stating that the public cannot always
understand inaction, particularly as related to environmental matters.
It has to be demonstrated that the technological, social, and political
sectors can work together effectively, and that implementation of plans
need not be constrained by institutional problems. He suggested some
specific ways in which land use and transportation controls can be
made effective;
(1) There is a willingness of professionals to cooperate in
developing land use and transportation plans which include
air and water quality effects, but there is a lack of
knowledge in many areas. Planners need help in learning
how to include these factors in the planning process.
This kind of assistance will increase their proficiency,
and thus their contribution to environmental quality.
(2) To improve action at all levels of government there should
be a mechanism to smooth the way in setting up proper
relationships among the various institutional, legal,
financial, and organizational, elements. Planners and
other professionals should not have to determine trade-offs
among these elements, but should have clear direction
toward accomplishing air and water quality goals.
(3) There is a continuing need for financial assistance or
inducements, to encourage the inclusion of environmental
considerations in the planning and implementation processes,
such as in some of the existing and proposed water quality
programs. There is a need for further research funds to
help develop quantitative measures for air and water quality
planning.
Mr. Robert A. Horton, Director, Administrative Analysis Division,
Office of the Mayor, Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee :
Mr. Horton spoke to the Boards on land use planning and control as
an aid to environmental protection from a local viewpoint.
Mr. Horton stated that the preservation and rehabilitation of our
urban environment requires that all land use planning include,
-18-
-------
environmental planning. The questions he raised are Row, By whom ,
and When ? He indicated th.at by whom must be a Federal, State,
local team. The question of when must be now, and for the res’t of
this century. The how to accomplish an interface between land use
and environmental planning is a complex problem which we must
resolve if we are to balance environmental and economic interests
within the world of political reality.
Mr. Horton explained that he helped produce a successful charter
for a consolidated city—county government of the Metropolitan
Government of Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee which operates
successfully under a strong mayor. On the national level, he pointed
out that he has seen promises of performance outstrip capacities
or willingness to fund programs. He further suggested that in order
to improve performance of our governmental system, we need improved
governmental structures that will define the appropriate roles of
Federal, State, and local government which must plan, program,
and serve areas and regions within the United States that vary in
their state of technological development from the 1890s until almost
1984 in some areas. In Mr. Horton’s opinion, most States have failed
to recognize the changes that have occurred in America during the
past 100 years. They have an anti-urban bias, and it is the State’s
laws that have created the choatic patchwork of duplicating and
ineffective jurisdictions found in many metropolitan areas throughout
the country. He feels States must improve their general legislation
and provide opportunities for strengthening units of local government
that have the area of jurisdiction necessary to perform regional
services, particularly those regional services that have a direct
impact on environmental planning and management.
In the area of pollution, he believes pollution and polluters come in
three different categories:
(1) Fixed location pollution generation.
(2) Mobile pollution and polluters.
(3) Footloose pollution and polluters.
Rural and urban land and land uses are affected by all three cate-
gories. Many public and private decisions have tremendous environ-
mental impacts that are unintended or unanticipated. In this regard,
Mr. Horton told the Boards few people recognize the complexity of the
environmental problem, the lead time necessary to accomplish results
in many areas, or the costs if we are to clean up and preserve and
rehabilitate many areas that have suffered environmental degradation
during the last century.
Mr. Horton then enumerated some of the successes of the consolidated
Nashville-Davidson County single unit of government, e.g. an overall
plan for sewers, a system wherein they will incinerate garbage, and
-19-
-------
heat and air condition a major portion of the central business
district, extensive -urban renewal and re-vitalization in downtown
Nashville, etc. Mr. Horton feels it 15 absolutely necessary to
plan and manage a balance between ecology and economics in order
to manage environmental protection within bounds of economic
realities presently constraining these endeavors across the country.
He believes it is essential that we devise every way possible to
interface land use decision making with environmental planning and
regulation. He continued that we need to define more clearly the
roles of Federal, State, and local governmental agencies in this
process. Finally, Mr. Horton express-ed satisfaction that the Boards
were holding hearings and urged additional hearings in various areas
where the intensity and complexity of the mix of issues may require
recognition of where the area is, and its economic growth potential
as policies and regulations are established.
In summarizing the two days of hearings in San Francisco and Los
Angeles, Chairman Ruckeishaus emphasized that the overriding theme
of the testimonies has been the need for institutional reform, but
the nature of that reform and where it takes place is open to a great
deal of dispute. He also indicated that in his opinion there Is no
level of government which is adequately addressing the complexity of
the problem of land use and relating it to all of the othei social
and environmental concerns that we have as a nation. Chairman
Ruckelshaus also urged that we try- to use the institutions we now
have in a more intelligent way. Two other issues stressed by the
Chairman were the problem of population control and the need for
attitudinal reform.
He concluded by stating that it is obvious that there are no panaceas
for the problems presented, that the objective of the two days of
hearings was to open up some ideas of the areas of concern and dispute,
and that he was looking forward to the Boards’ recommendations with the
hope that the results will have benefits far beyond California and even
the nation.
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1972 :
Back in San Francisco, the Boards met in executive session, chaired
by Mr. A. James Barnes, and developed their recommendations on the
relationship between environmental quality and land use. These
recommendations are attached as appendix 2.
-20-
-------
FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 1972 :
The Air and Water Boards held brief separate business meetings at
which time, the Water Advisory Board adopted a resolution on ocean
overwashes. (Appendix 3)
The Boards then held a press conference at the EPA regional office
to present their recommendations.
Principal spokesmen at the press conference were Mr. Barnes, serving
as chairman, Mr. Mendenhall representing the Water Advisory Board and
Dr. Donaldson representing the Air Advisory Board.
Following the conference the joint meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
—21-
-------
APPENDIX 1
LIST OF INVITED SPEAKERS
SAN FRANCISCO
Mrs. Rebecca Nerenberg
Policy and Procedure Staff
Office of Federal Activities
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
Mr. Lance Marston, Director
Office of Regional Planning
Department of Interior
Washington, D. C.
Mr. Martin Convisser, Director
Office of Environmental Quality
Department of Transportation,
Washington, D. C.
Mr. Richard Broun, Director
Division of Environmental and
Land Use Planning
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Washington, D. C.
Dr. Melvin L. Cotner, Director
Natural Resources Economics Division
Economics Research Service
Department of Agriculture
Washington, D. C.
Mr. Robert H. Kirby, Director
State Planning and Community Affairs
Richmond, Virginia
Mr. Michael McCloskey, Executive Director
Sierra Club
San Francisco, California
Mr. Ralph Sargent, Jr., Vice President
Public Affairs
Public Service Company of Colorado
Denver, Colorado
Mrs. Donald Clusen
Chairman, Environmental Quality Commission
League of Women Voters
c reen Bays, Wisconsin
-------
LOS ANGELES SPEAKERS
Mr. Thomas Bradley
City Councilman
Los Angeles, California
Mr. James Montague, Director
The Rouse Company
Columbia, Maryland
Mr. Glenn Claytor, Director
Urban Housing Development
National Urban League
New York, New York
Mr. Robert 1. Jorvig, Executive Director
Metropolitan Council
St. Paul, Minnesota
Mr. Alan M. Voorhees
Alan M. Voorhees Association, Inc.
Westgate Research Park
McLean, Virginia
Mr. Robert Horton,
Fiscal Administrator Officer
Office of the Mayor
Nashville, Tennessee
Mr. Richard Heikka, Executive Officer
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
South Lake Tahoe, California
-2—
-------
APPENDIX 2
STATEMENT ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY AND LAND USE
PRESIDENT’S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
AND
PRESIDENT’S AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MARCH 31, 1972
-------
I NTRODIJCT ION
At the request of Mr. William D. Ruckeishaus, Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, the first joint meeting of the President’s Water
Pollution Control Advisory Board and the President’s Air Quality Advisory
Board was arranged to encompass the entire week of March 27th in
California. The two boards were asked to come together to explore the
relationships between environmental quality and land use, the impacts
of one on the other and to formulate recommendations to President Nixon
and the Administrator of EPA on these general topics.
On Monday morning, the combined boards were provided an overview of the
issues involved by the staff of EPA Region IX and other EPA representatives.
That afternoon, airplane overflight inspections were made of pertinent
conditions in the Bay area, at Lake Tahoe, of the Los Angeles metropolitan
area and of many locations in between both over the inland and coastal
portions of California.
All of Tuesday was devoted to testimony by resource witnesses at a hearing
in San Francisco and Wednesday was utilized for similar hearings in
Los Angeles. Testimony was received from government, private, educational,
and consulting specialists. The two boards concentrated throughout
Thursday on board findings and the development of recommendations.
The quality of our air and water resources, as well as other environmental
elements, are vital to the quality of life styles to which all citizens
aspire. It is amply clear that past use of many great land resources of
the United States of America, local land use planning, absence of com-
prehensive and coordinated regional plans and many failures to implement
well conceived plans have resulted in present conditions in our urban and
rural environments which are now increasingly evaluated as contrary to
public health and welfare and to maintenance of sufficient environmental
quality for the general welfare of the nation. A more thorough and
comprehensive approach to these vital issues must be developed and applied.
Following are findings and conclusions which result from the week’s
activities of the two Presidental Advisory Boards:
-------
I. Relationship of Environmental Quality with Land Use Planning
and Implementation .
The Boards find that there is a significant but complex and poorly
understood relationship between land use decisions and environmental
quality. Public and private activities and determinations as to the
use that will be made of a given area of land can make it difficult
for us to reach desirable or even acceptable levels of environmental
quality either now or at any time in the forseeable future. This
situation will almost certainly continue to be true unless the
implications on overall environmental quality are made an important
factor in decisions as to uses of land.
Recommendations
The Boards believe that means should be developed to bridge the gap
between current land use decision-making and the national efforts
to enhance and protect our environment.
II. Attitudes Toward Land Use .
As a result of the deterioration of the environment in such areas as
air, water, solid waste and noise and in view of the inherent relation-
ship between these concerns and land use, there is a growing realization
that a joint commitment by certain public and private interests
recognizing land as a resource as well as a commodity, is required if
we are to insure environmental enhancement.
Recommendations
The need to maintain proper land use requires a reappraisal of private
and public land as a resource, as well as a commodity.
III. Coordination Of and Between Federal Agencies .
A number of Federal agencies have statutory responsibility and
decisions which in certain cases may affect our ability to achieve
environmental quality. Decisions on the management and use of
Federal lands, on the issuance of Federal licenses or permits, or on the
awarding of grants or contracts can have significant impacts on land
use decisions affecting environmental quality. Although the National
Environmental Policy Act, and court decisions interpreting that Act,
have generally broadened the range of land use issues considered by
Federal agencies in their decision making processes, it appears that
in many cases these important decisions are made without sufficient
interagency coordination. This can often result in inadequate con-
sideration of environmental values affected by these decisions.
-------
Recommendations
The Boards recommend that coordination be improved between Federal
agencies making land use decisions, and other Federal agencies,
especially the Environmental Protection Agency in its role as the
Federal agency responsible for laws and standards in the area of
air quality, water quality, solid waste management, and noise.
One method of accomplishing these ends is through formal interagency
agreements between Federal entities involved in environmental issues.
IV. Role of Federal-State-Regional-Local Government in Land Planning
and Implementation .
With various notable exceptions, government organizations at all
levels have not adequately developed and carried out comprehensive
land use plans that properly protect the environment. The Boards
have concluded that there is an inescapable relationship between
land use and environmental quality that requires close cooperation,
coordination, and assistance between governmental agencies at
all levels.
Recommendations
The Boards recommend that the Federal government provide:
1. Land Use guidelines including attention to:
a. Environmental needs in the large, built-up metropolitan
areas.
b. The differential costs and benefits for different sectors
of the population.
c. Standards to guide State decision-making in an equitable
treatment of those costs and benefits.
d. The implementation of effective controls.
2. Financial assistance to State and/or regional and local
governments for developing and implementing comprehensive
land use plans.
3. Sanctions applied to States unwilling to carry out effective
land use programming.
The States should provide criteria as well as financial and technical
assistance to regional and local governments in their land management
efforts.
-------
V. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Role in Land Use Planning .
The Environmental Protection Agency has an important influence in
determining how land is used by virtue of the standard setting
process associated with the air and water pollution control legis-
lation. Through the standard setting mechanism, environmental con-
straints are imposed upon land use. Consequently, States and local
governments are affected as are Federal programs and actions.
Recommendations
1. That the Environmental Protection Agency move purposefully to
improve coordination with other Federal agencies whose activities
affect or are affected by air and water quality standards; provide
more environmental planning guidance to Federal, State and local
agencies together with close coordination and cooperation with
local, regional and State land use planners and policy makers;
and make full use of present authority to affect land use
decisions with respect to all environmental quality.
2. That the Presidents’ Air and Water Quality Advisory Boards con-
tinue to assess and evaluate the complex relationships between
land use and overall environmental quality, and define the role
of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to present
land use planning and future possible regional land use policy.
VI. Soclo-Economic Considerations .
Speakers appearing before the Boards and discussions among the Board
members evidenced general agreement that land use planning and
control for environmental protection at Federal, State, and local
levels should involve appropriate consideration of socio-economic
policies as well as physical and technological measures. Some
of these socio-economic policy factors as alternatives to the
application of control technology are population movements, resource
distribution and location of sources of pollution.
Recommendations
1. That Federal policies and programs on standard setting, grants,
contracts, public works, regulation of and investments in
Federally owned or controlled lands, and preparation and review
of environmental impact statements require the consideration of
the effects upon population concentration, distribution of
resources such as inter-basin water diversions, energy production
and distribution, transportation systems, and locations of
industrial plants and employment opportunities.
2. That a socio-economic impact statement covering the above con-
siderations be required as a companion to and equal in importance
to present environmental impact statements. In this connection
-------
the Federal agencies concerned should conduct studies of the
cost-benefit advantages of such socio-economic planning and
control devices as contrasted to the cost-effectiveness of
the installation of “end of the pipe” control technology.
VII. Pending Legislation Concerning a National Land Use Policy .
The Boards recognize that several legislative proposals to establish
a National Land Use Policy are presently under consideration by the
Congress. While differing significantly in the manner in which
they would accomplish their purposes, bills which are now receiving
serious consideration generally reflect the view that although the
primary responsibility for land use planning must be placed at the
State level, the Federal government should exercise leadership in
this area by providing funds to assist the States in their planning
efforts, by establishing criteria to guide them in planning, and by
invoking sanctions if necessary to ensure that these criteria are
followed.
Recommendations
The Boards commend the President and the Administrator for their
support of early enactment of legislation to establish a national
land use policy. We believe it imperative that any such legislation
be so structured as to require land use plans at all levels of
government to be developed from the outset in a manner which will,
as a minimum, ensure compliance with applicable environmental laws
and standards, including air and water quality standards and
implementation plans. In connection with such legislation, the
Boards urge that consideration be given to means for direct support
of land use planning by those large metropolitan areas that request
such support providing that the requesting agencies can demonstrate
an ability to work within general guidelines consistent with
National Policies which are provided by the Federal government.
If such legislation is enacted, we recommend that the Administrator
make the resources of the Environmental Protection Agency available to
States and local governments to assist in the formulation of land
use plans to meet environmental objectives, and in the review of
plans for consistency with applicable laws prior to Federal approval.
VIII. Information and Education .
The availability and exchange of valid information regarding the
interaction of land use and environmental protection must be
increased to land use planners and decision makers and the public
at large. If the importance of environmental problems is not
recognized, they cannot be adequately addressed.
-------
A more informed public participating in both planning and political
decisions, could raise the visibility of the issues and strengthen
the prospects for implementation of land use decisions.
Recommendations
1. The importance of environmental considerations as a part of the
planning process be brought to the attention of appropriate
officials at all levels of government.
2. An information program be directed toward the general public.
3. Methods be developed that will aid the planner in quantifying
the environmental impact of his plan.
4. Better institutional arrangements are needed for decision makers
to participate in the planning process.
IX. Development of Required Scientific Knowledge .
A consistent theme running through the presentation of many witnesses
that appeared before the Boards was the absolute necessity for the
development of new knowledge in many fields if satisfactory land use
and environmental planning is to be accomplished now and in the future.
Recommendations
The Boards recommend that the Federal government and in particular
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency take those
steps necessary to assure the development of plans for and the
funding necessary to obtain the new scientific knowledge required
to determine strategies for dealing with the preservation of our
environment.
-------
APPENDIX 3
RESOLUT ION
OCEAN OVERWASHES
Whereas the State of North Carolina is aware of water pollution in
the upper sounds of North Carolina, especially Currituck, Aiber-
marie and Painlico sounds, and that they are rapidly becoming
eutrophic,
Whereas these sounds are rapidly losing their former natural
characteristics,
Whereas ocean overwashes are natural physiographic features and
natural safety ways for protection of the land, aquatic and human life,
Whereas these sounds continue to be principal and major nurseries
for both fin and shellfish,
Whereas both private (land developers) and public (NPS and Fish and
Wildlife) interests have altered the natural topography on the
barrier lands of this region by dune alternation and closing of
natural ocean overwashes,
Whereas such alternation has contributed to rapid deterioration of
these bodies of water,
Whereas the President’s Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
recognizes the critical nature of this problem, therefore,
The President’s Water Pollution Control Advisory Board meeting in
San Francisco, California on March 31, 1972 recommends that the
practice of closure of natural ocean overwashes into any estuarine
bodies of water of the United States or its territories that support
a fin and/or shellfish nursery be prohibited.
------- |