Conference Summary Report
TURNING
THE IDE:
Legislative Remedies for Troubled Waters
December 4 & 5,1989/Seattle,Washington
Sponsored by:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Washington State Department of Ecology

-------
Conference Summary Report
TURNING THE TIDE:
Legislative Remedies for "Doubled "W&teis
December 4-5,1989/SeattIe, Washington
Sponsored by:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Puget Sound W&ter Quality Authority
Washington State Department Of Ecology
Editors:
Wendy Wktanabe, Conference Coordinator
Annette Frahm, Publications Manager
Sarah Barton, The Barton Group
Prepared in cooperation with:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10, Office of Puget Sound
Seattle, W&shington

-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project was sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection Agency cooperative agreement
CE-000407. The project was partially funded through the National Estuary Program under the authorities of the
Clean Water Act as amended. Funding was approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency Office
of Marine and Estuarine Protection. Dr. Jack H. Gakstatter served as project officer for Region 10, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, or Washington State Department of Ecology, nor does mention of
tradenames or commercial products constitute endorsements or recommendation for use.

-------
Preface
The plight of our nation's troubled waters—irreplaceable but polluted coasts, bays, lakes, sounds, and es-
tuaries—challenges states throughout the country to find the means to protect their most valuable "liquid
assets." The conference, "Turning the Tide: Legislative Remedies for Troubled Waters," brought
together state legislators, local government officials, program staff, the media, and interested citizens
from around the country. During the two-day conference, attendees: 1) gained a national perspective on
estuary protection efforts; 2) discussed common issues and problems; and 3) learned about successful
strategies for future action.
The picture that emerged from the conference is that cleanup is happening throughout the country,
public awareness has been heightened, and political boundaries have been crossed to solve problems and
to plan for the future. The accomplishments have come about because of political cooperation, a
regional vision, public support and education, and money. And as problems grow more complex and inter-
woven, institutions grow bulkier and less responsive, and start-up enthusiasm gives way to the difficulties
of implementation and maintenance, these tools for "turning the tide" will be needed even more.
This summary report is a compilation of edited presentations submitted by conference presenters. Its pur-
pose is to provide a general overview of efforts throughout the country to protect estuary and coastal
waters, with a particular emphasis on legislative and policy accomplishments. The combined list of
speakers and resource people provides a directory of national contacts involved in estuary protection.
ill

-------
Table of Contents
Plenary Sessions	1
Robie G. Russell, Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (WA)
Katherine Fletcher, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (WA)
Neal Peirce, Columnist/Author (Washington, D.C.)
Christine Gregoire, Department of Ecology (WA)
Governor Booth Gardner, State of Washington (WA)
Robert H. Wayland III, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, D.C.)
The Chesapeake Bay	16
Senator Gerald W. Winegrad, Maryland State Senate (MD)
Stephen K. Whlteway, Richmond County (VA)
William C. Baker, Chesapeake Bay Foundation (MD)
Ann Pesiri Swanson, Chesapeake Bay Commission (MD)
Lawrence Latane, Richmond Times-Dispatch (VA)
The Great Lakes	23
Senator Robert J. Boggs, Ohio State Senate (OH)
Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D., Great Lakes Commission (MI)
Bonnie Koenig, Council of the Great Lakes Governors (IL)
John Jackson, Great Lakes United (ONT)
Puget Sound	28
Senator Mike Kreidler, Washington State Senate (WA)
Carol Jolly, Department of Ecology (WA)
James Abernathy, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (WA)
Eric Pryne, Seattle Times (WA)
~Mayor Tim Douglas, City of Bellingham (WA)
"Other" Programs	33
Senator Owen H. Johnson, New York State Senate (NY)
Senator John Atkin, Connecticut State Senate (CT)
Caroline A. Karp, Narragansett Bay Project (RI)
Albert Aramburu, Marin County (CA)
~Speech summary not available by publication date.
v

-------
Land Use and Growth Management
37
Sarah Taylor, Ph.D., Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Commission (MD)
Armando Carbonnel, Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission (MA)
Robert E. Stacey, Jr., City of Portland Bureau of Planning (OR)
Steven A. McAdam, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (CA)
Stormwater Management	41
Pam Bissonnette, Bellevue City Manager's Office (WA)
Roxane R. Dow, Bureau of Surface Water Management (FL)
Earl Shaver, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DE)
Creative Funding Approaches	44
Joseph R. Williams, Department of Ecology (WA)
William J. Brah, The Center for the Great Lakes (IL)
Caroline A. Karp, Narragansett Bay Project (RI)
Jerry Bobo, Smith Barney, Harris Upham and Co. (WA)
Research and Monitoring Programs	49
Sally Cole-Misch, International Joint Commission (MI)
Andrea Copping, Ph.D., Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (WA)
Jessica Lacey, California State Water Resources Control Board (CA)
Sin-Lam Chan, Ph.D., National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA (WA)
Building Constituencies for Estuary Programs	52
Frances Flanigan, Alliance for Chesapeake Bay Inc. (MD)
Trudy Coxe, Save the Bay (RI)
Sheila Kelly, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (WA)
Joe Dial, Gulf of Mexico Programs, Citizens' Advisory Committee
The Role of Local Government	56
Judy Corbett, Local Government Commission (CA)
Christine Reed, Santa Monica City Council (CA)
Edwin Pratt, Board of Health (MA)-
George Cole, Sussex County Council (DE)
~Speech summary not available by publication date.
vi

-------
Wetlands Protection
59
Katherine P. Ransel, Environmental Law Institute (Washington D.C.)
Robert Tudor, Department of Environmental Protection (NJ)
Edwin H. Clark II, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DE)
Contaminated Sediments and Dredging	61
John Wakeman, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (WA)
Keith Phillips, Department of Ecology (WA)
Hal Nelson, Environment Canada (BC)
~Barry Nelson, Save the San Francisco Bay (CA)
Spill Prevention and Response	64
Steve Hunter, Department of Ecology (WA)
Eric Nalder, Seattle Times (WA)
~J.D. Snyder, Office of the Great Lakes (MI)
~J.D. Hair, National Wildlife Federation (Washington, D.C.)
Nonpoint Source Pollution	67
Richard K. Wallace, Department of Ecology (WA)
David W. Sides, Division of Soil and Water Conservation (NC)
Michael Llewelyn, Department of Natural Resources (WI)
Marine Debris	69
Roberta E. Weisbrod, Ph.D. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NY)
Dianne R. Hunt, Bureau of Marine Resources (MS)
Jill Kauffman, Center for Marine Conservation (CA)
~James M. Coe, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Entanglement Research
(WA)
Toxic Pollution	72
Cynthia Adams Dunn, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay (PA)
~Marsha Landolt, Ph.D., University of Washington, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences (WA)
•Steve W. Tedder, Division of Environmental Management (NC)
~Speech summary not available by publication date.
vii

-------
Gaining Legislative Support	73
Delegate W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. (VA)
State Senator Roy W. Wilt (PA)
State Senator Phil Talmadge (WA)
* Assemblyman Tom Hayden (CA)
Appendices	77
Geographic Index
Issue Index
List of Legislators
~Speech summary not available by publication date.

-------
Plenary Sessions
Opening Remarks
Robie Russell, Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10
Good morning. I'd like to welcome you all this morn-
ing to beautiful Seattle. I think half of it's washing
down into Puget Sound right now, so this conference
is very timely in terms of how we manage coastal
waters. My name is Robie Russell. I'm regional ad-
ministrator for EPA's Region 10, which encompasses
the states of Alaska, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.
The focus of the meeting today is on environmental is-
sues in coastal areas. I think it's obvious to anyone
who has traveled around the United States how impor-
tant coastal areas are to our economy, to our lifestyle
—in fact, statistics indicate that within the next 20
years or so, 50 to 60 percent of all the people in the
United States will live within 50 or so miles of coastal
areas. So it becomes increasingly important for us to
focus on how to manage those coastal areas, how to
protect the important resources that are contained
therein, how to assure that people can enjoy the
amenities while at the same time not destroying the
important ecological values.
I'm veiy happy to see these kinds of programs take
place, particularly to invite people in the legislative
sector. Often the business of environmental protec-
tion is handled by "experts," by people who are very
interested in the program, be they members of interest
groups, be they members of the government, whatever
that may be, it is often left to the "professionals" to
deal with environmental issues. As we move forward
into the '90s and beyond, it's becoming increasingly ob-
vious to those of us that work in this field that
environmental issues belong to all of us. To use the
old Pogoism, "We have met the environmental prob-
lem and they is us." Clearly coastal management falls
into that category. Much of what we do, whether
we're mowing our lawn or fertilizing it or driving the
car, winds up somehow washing down into an estuary
like Puget Sound. So we cannot forget how important
these estuaries are and the coastal waters, and we can-
not waste any time moving forward to manage in the
proper manner.
We in Region 10 like to emphasize a strong state-
federal partnership. We work closely with our state
counterparts, and in fact we're the only region in the
country that has EPA subregional offices in each of
the state capitals, and works closely with the state
agencies. And that's very important because as we
move forward again to environmental protection in
the '90s and beyond, it's no longer just the federal
government, it's no longer just the small universe of
big polluters. It's the kind of situation that requires a
strong partnership between all parties—state, federal,
and local governments—if we are to succeed in manag-
ing our lifestyles in a way that is both protective of the
environment and at the same time enhances it. So I
think that these kinds of programs are vital to bringing
the level of understanding up, to helping to exchange
ideas, and to helping federal regulators and state
regulators understand what the issues are from other
perspectives.
It's my opportunity now to introduce somebody who
has been very very instrumental in moving forward in
the state of Washington, particularly Puget Sound,
with management of coastal areas. The Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority was formed to investigate the
problems of Puget Sound and to develop strategies to
help solve those, to try to bring state and local and
federal governments together along with the private
sector, and the person who has headed that up for a
number of years, and probably is known in this part of
the country as—I don't know what—the "Mother of
Puget Sound"—Kathy Fletcher.
1

-------
Despite our geographic diversity, we are facing very similar
problems and challenges around the country.
Introduction: Troubled
Waters—What's At Stake?
Katherine Fletcher, Chair
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Thank you very much, Robie.
I'd also like to welcome you here this morning and it's
great to see you all. I'd like to start out with a few
thank yous, first and foremost to EPA. Robie was too
modest to say so, but EPA was really the inspiration
and then the sugar daddy to help us put this program
together and I think it exemplifies the kind of benefit
that we have certainly seen in working with EPA in our
estuary program here in Puget Sound. EPA has been
extremely interested in establishing and fostering a na-
tional network of those of us who are working on these
efforts. This conference is another step in that direc-
tion and we really appreciate their support.
"Turning the Tide," the name of this meeting, is an am-
bitious task even if you're the moon. So it's sobering
to start out thinking about the magnitude of our task.
I think first of all, though, one of the purposes of this
conference is to celebrate the various efforts around
the country, in the states, especially in state legisla-
tures, to help protect coastal waters and estuaries.
We are here to learn about those efforts and to acknow-
ledge them. But I think also that this conference is a
challenge to all of us to learn as much as we can and
return to our own tasks, not only with that informa-
tion, but hopefully with the new vigor that can come
from exchanging ideas with people who are tackling
similar problems from different perspectives and in dif-
ferent places.
It's my belief that despite our geographic diversity, we
are in fact facing veiy similar problems and challenges
around the country. And I think it's also fair to say
that what's at stake for each of us in dealing with our
own coastal waters and estuaries is the quality of life in
our regions. By that I'm talking both about the en-
vironment and the economy.
Among our common challenges, first of all, is the ex-
traordinary population growth that's occurring in our
coastal regions. Robie mentioned that. In all its
manifestations, I think this may in fact be the major
challenge that we are facing.
There are about three million people who live in the
Puget Sound basin today. By the end of the century,
there will be nearly four million, and in the four most
populous counties in the central Puget Sound area, we
are expecting by the year 2020 nearly a doubling of
population, or at least 80-plus percent population
growth. Although these numbers are not exact, it is
sobering to think about what is going on.
Another of our common challenges is that we are deal-
ing with a tremendous diversity of sources of pollution
and causes of problems. Everything from the lack of
toxicant control in major discharging facilities to the
impacts of each of us and our automobiles.
A third common challenge in dealing with estuary and
coastal protection is the complexity and multiplicity of
the jurisdictions that must play a role. Here in Puget
Sound, there are upwards of 450 different public en-
tities that have an important job to do relative to Puget
Sound, and I think the story is the same around the
country, although perhaps our situation is simpler: at
least until we can forge a partnership with the
Canadians to the north, we are dealing just with one
state as we go about our efforts to protect Puget Sound.
Another challenge, and certainly the one that plagues
us day to day, is how tremendously difficult it is to
muster and keep the kind of funding and support that's
so critical if we're going to be successful in these ef-
forts, which by their nature are long term.
We talk a lot about preventing problems, about an-
ticipating problems and acting in advance, and yet I
2

-------
think we all acknowledge that it's far easier to get
funding and support when there's a crisis — and that's
usually too late.
In fact, a lot of what we're doing around the country as
we deal with these problems is trying to impose long-
term thinking on short-term systems. That is a
fundamental challenge as we go about our work.
But we are making lots of progress. Over the next day
and a half, you'll be hearing about exciting accomplish-
ments of all sorts around the country. Here in Puget
Sound, for example, we're very happy that we now
have a coordinated management program to protect
the Sound, and in doing so, we have brought together
all the levels of government. We really feel that we
have begun to establish a cooperative spirit.
Puget Sound has an independent authority, the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority, which does the plan-
ning and the coordinating and the all-important
holding of the feet to the fire, to get things to happen.
Specifically, we are proud of some of our innovative ef-
forts in nonpoint source control, in public
involvement and education, and in the control of
toxicants, to name a few areas where we feel there is
substantial progress occurring in Puget Sound.
As we look at those accomplishments and feel good
about them, however, we always return to the un-
finished agenda. I think it's much on our minds today
that the very future and momentum of the effort here
in Puget Sound is gravely threatened.
So we've come here today to turn the tide. We've got
our work cut out for us. You're an impressive group
and we have a lot to learn from each other, and I'm
certainly looking forward to spending this time with
you.
Thank you.
Keynote Address: The Role of the
Media in Educating the Public
Neal R. Pierce, Columnist / Author
Kathy Fletcher asked me to focus this afternoon on
the role of the media in "educating the public and
provoking constructive thought about regional en-
vironmental problems."
Now this may sound innocent to all of you—getting
the media to do what it should be doing anyway, acting
like a good and thoughtful citizen. In reality, she's as-
king a helluva thing, almost like asking reporters to
perform unnatural acts. It's one thing if you give some
correspondent a hot tip—how a certain firm is pollut-
ing but not being held responsible, for example.
Quoting people saying bad things about each other,
white hats vs. black hats, investigatory stories, big
revelations, and maybe Pulitzer Prizes for bringing
down the Mighty and the Evil—that's what we in the
media are interested in.
But "educating the public"? "Provoking constructive
thought"? Let's get serious. That's the stuff of school
civics classes, League of Woman Voters debates,
boring voter education pamphlets.
As Arnold Rosenfeld noted a few years ago when he
was the editor of the Dayton Daily News, the press has
distanced itself from ordinary people. Its voice "is
often seen as strident for the sake of stridency. What
appears to be [its] central ethic, 'We catch crooks,' is
seen as the journalistic equivalent of Bonnie and
Clyde's, 'We rob banks."'
Kathy Fletcher may not be, though, as dense as you
might think. There's a minority among us scribes who
insist we, as journalists, are definitely in and part of
our society, not disinterested observers peering in
from outside and looking to identify the worst. And
Kathy knows about my personal infatuation with mat-
ters humanistic and environmental.
3

-------
from outside and looking to identify the worst. And
Kathy knows about my personal infatuation with mat-
ters humanistic and environmental.
The so-called "Pierce Report," the series I did earlier
this fall for the Seattle Times, and a similar series I
prepared in 1987 for the Arizona Republic and Phoenix
Gazette, represent an effort to gain basic insights from
the leaders and keen observers of a metropolitan
region. To talk with dozens of them and determine
what they see as the region's primary problems, and
what can or ought to be done to correct them. The ex-
ercise has led me straight down a path where some of
my own reporting led me in recent years—to the en-
vironment, to land use, and to questions of how our
society does govern itself to deal with problems more
complex than power struggles between powerful inter-
ests or fingering the government official who most
recently had his hand in the cookie jar.
Looking at the range of problems of a metropolitan
area also coaxes one into thinking more holistically, in-
terconnectedly, than he might otherwise. For
example: How land-consumptive sprawl development
on the one- and two-acre lots not only fills up the
countryside with wall-to-wall development, but also
forces people farther and farther from practicable
mass transit, with the result that auto dependency be-
comes absolute, which in turn means worse air quality,
which in turn is a health problem. Or how, when we
run away from our established cities and towns and
start building high-tech wonderlands out along the in-
terstates and major arterials leading far from town, we
locate the most promising jobs of the new economy far
from underemployed and unemployed city masses who
may need them more desperately than anyone else.
These are the kinds of critical interconnections the
media has classically been poor at. If no advocacy
group is rising up to make the case, then even men-
tioning the interconnections and their repercussions is
a bit like covering the dog that doesn't bite. What's
more, the coverage of systems and how they function
or don't, as opposed to the coverage of people and ex-
citing events, is not the way a young reporter gets
promoted fast up the ladder.
The good news is that some newspapers and a handful
of television stations are starting to take some of these
issues more seriously. For one thing, because the
problems people see around them, in the environ-
ment, in our society, are becoming manifestly more
serious, less susceptible to easy solution, indeed more
dangerous to everyone's health and safety and future
well-being than we might ever have imagined in the
past.
Last week I was writing a newspaper column contrast-
ing the condition of the American city and our
metropolitan areas at the dawn of the '90s, as opposed
to 1980 or 1970. I found myself noting that our tradi-
tional center cities may be obsolete. Not in their
special, urbane qualities—the arts, corporate head-
quarters, fine eating, historic preservation, and
exciting design, great mixes of people and sheer fun.
That side seems in healthy enough shape.
But in almost every other way, what we once called the
city, central Chicago or Philadelphia or Los Angeles,
or any other you might name, is starting to look
dangerously obsolete. Seen from the air, the city
blends invisibly into one great, constantly expanding
metropolitan blur. Ninety percent of today's fresh
business development is outside its boundaries. If you
think of the "commute shed"—where people start
from home and end up at work—the traditional radial
commuting pattern, into the city, has been replaced in
the '70s and '80s by something that looks more like a
spider web of suburb-to-suburb movement.
The compelling reality is that almost every one of the
most critical problems facing the "true city"—the en-
tire metropolis—is beyond the reach of our traditional
center city governments. No single municipality, no
matter how well-governed, will be able to handle such
mounting problems as traffic congestion, air pollution,
inadequate mass transit, or solid and industrial waste.
Nor can society's mounting dilemmas—homelessness,
4

-------
Almost every one of the most critical problems facing the "true
city"—the entire metropolis—is beyond the reach of our
traditional center city governments.
inadequate housing, rising racism, the abandonment
of children—be addressed effectively on anything less
than a comprehensive, regionwide basis.
This is a reality that state legislators must increasingly
take into account: that a great deal of effective,
relevant governance must be delivered at the level of
the true city that you'd see on an airplane coming in—
the entire metropolitan area. Counties, cities, towns
are great, but the legislature needs to recognize and
deal with the true region if it's to deal with the true
scope of problems that are relevant, in fact often criti-
cal, for the state's geographic future. For water
quality, of course, that encompasses an even greater
geographic area—all the territory surrounding a Puget
Sound or Chesapeake Bay, for example.
It is true that the media are not well-equipped to han-
dle problems on a regional scale. Editors and
reporters are accustomed to covering single govern-
ments that make clear-cut decisions. It's tough for
them to face this new miasma of problems, overlain by
the intervention of a perplexing array of city, town, vil-
lage, county governments, state authorities, special
districts, and taxing authorities.
But in the world of 1990 and beyond, there will be no
substitute for a metropolitan and regional focus. The
crises of air pollution, crazy land-use patterns,
gruesome traffic jams, and closed-up landfills are
materially worse now than in 1980 and are getting
worse every year. Coastal and water quality problems
are connected to all of this. Our collective quality of
life is starting to decline. We have to attack problems
at the logical level or, in a way, confess we aren't at-
tacking them at all.
I think more and more of the media is starting to catch
on to the severity of despoiled land, polluted air and
water, toxics, overflowing solid waste dumps and all
the attendant issues. Reporters and editors can read
the polls showing how the environment has shot up to
the top of people's concern lists. In a region like Seat-
tle, it said a lot when in one constituency after another
this fall, the candidates for restrained, slow growth
won out over contenders allied with development in-
terests.
Occasionally a far-sighted newspaper and correspon-
dent rise to the challenge of looking at a major
problem in its multi-faceted entirety. An example was
Eric Pryne's "Imperiled Sound" series in the Seattle
Times in 1984—articles which crystallized concern and
effort and led indirectly to the legislature's decision to
form the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority.
Kathy Fletcher and her colleagues were delighted
when the Olympian, the newspaper in the capital city
here, printed a superb series this October by writer
John Dodge entitled "Puget Sound: Life or Death?"
One strong point of that writing was that it not only
covered the essentials of the Sound's water quality—
what's happening to it, what might be done—but that
the writer also portrayed the issue in very personal
terms, with personal glimpses of how people feel
about the great waterway and the agenda to protect it.
Another strong point in that series, that western
Washington state's population boom—the potential
for another one million people in the next 20 years—
could have disastrous environmental impacts on the
Sound, and on the quality of life of the region. What
the writer was providing, in other words, was intercon-
nection-sensitive coverage.
In the series I worked on for the Seattle Times, the
focus was on the cost of unfettered, land-consumptive
growth in terms of lost open space, breathing room,
landscape, and quality of life. The perfect comple-
ment in the Olympian series was the finding, quoting
the executive director of the Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, that growth's current patterns
mean suburban sprawl, which in turn generates runoff
problems and more septic tanks, and a prediction that
in 2010, "stormwater will be a more serious threat
than industrial discharges." Followed up, a few para-
graphs later, with a quote from Governor Booth
Gardner, that "the preservation of Puget Sound is
critical to the economic health of the state."
5

-------
The challenge is how to engage the public, with the media as one
method of education and communication.
and for people's lives, rather than getting mired in
parochial or small-bore disputes of the moment.
How do people like yourselves, engaged in legislative
and hands-on work to preserve coastal waters, includ-
ing some of the great estuaries of our continent, plan
strategy to get the media more attentive on a continu-
ing basis?
It seems to me the challenge has to be seen more
broadly than that. It's really how to engage the public,
with the media as one method of education and com-
munication.
Polling is one answer. The Narragansett Bay Project,
for example, has utilized public opinion polls to show
how the general public feels about the Bay's problems
and their vision for its future. I understand most of the
respondents in that Rhode Island survey said the Bay
was so important to them that they'd accept financial
sacrifices to protect it. We all know that poll-taking
can be expensive. But there are always lots of market
surveys and other surveys being taken around a
region—by businesses, marketing organizations, and
others. The newspapers themselves do frequent poll-
ing. With some careful planning, groups or even
individual legislators working on coastal issues may
find it's possible to "piggyback" on other polling. Espe-
cially to sway opinion leaders and government officials,
polls are terrific stuff. They can also help a lot in plot-
ting one's public strategies. Industries use polls all the
time; "the other side," if you will, needs to use the
same strategy.
Of course it goes without saying that clear-cut poll
results make for good newspaper and television
coverage.
No one should overlook educational programs,
through the schools and universities, through the
hundreds of civic groups in our communities. I believe
a lot of kids, over the past 20 years or so, read and
believed the anti-smoking messages in the media and
were a force in getting their parents to stop. Bringing
environmental messages to school kids can have a
double payoff—the new values and questions they
bring home, and helping to set their lifelong attitudes.
And the methods are multiple, from classroom presen-
tations to some of the methods the Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority has used, including a high school
working with a conservation district and boats taking
kids out onto the Sound to learn about it.
Video films, portraying a cause, have become one of
the most powerful communications tools of our times.
Few issues lend themselves to such compelling visual
presentation more than environmental, coastal land-
use questions. The up-front investment is large, but
this is exactly the kind of effort local foundations think
about supporting. I am noting more and more use of
video films by cause-oriented groups, from children's
rights to the environment. One needs to avoid film ap-
proaches that are too "hyped," too propagandistic.
Nobody should ever get caught in the position of
Exxon, which I understand prepared a video film for its
directors on the firm's Alaskan oil spill recovery efforts
and managed not to include a single oil-stained bird or
mammal in the entire footage.
I do think there's a rich, untapped potential in films
that portray accurately but vividly the alternative en-
vironmental and social futures, 10 or 12 years down the
road, depending on the policies we adopt today. What
will happen with unfettered sprawl versus more popula-
tion concentration and carefully planned, compact new
communities? What are the prospects for a great river
or estuary, given one set of environmental protections
versus another—or today's set of protections as op-
posed to potential new ones? Noting alternative
futures, and giving people the costs—up-front costs of
doing something more positive, and eventual costs of
non-action—is a wonderful way to focus their atten-
tion, and to stir their civic concerns.
Citizen workshops—to set goals for saving an estuary
or coastline, and especially to involve multiple parties
whose own practices may be part of today's problems—
6

-------
are a strong and increasingly popular tool. Goals-set-
ting workshops have been an important part of the
Narragansett Bay strategy. Here in Washington state,
Kathy Fletcher told me of a whole range of workshops
and outreach employed by her commission. Included,
for example, were meetings with dairymen, contrac-
tors, and others to help them see the problems in a
larger context, and develop their own consensus of
changing many of their own practices.
One of her most charming stories was of a video of
local dairymen, shots made of discussions held in
farmers' kitchens, low key and perhaps more credible
than some kind of slick presentation the commission
might have prepared. In an era when anything smack-
ing of government generates a feeling of instant
citizen mistrust, keeping discussions, reports, even
videos close to real people and their concerns is not
only a smart but perhaps essential strategy.
In our series for the Seattle Times, for example, we
tried constantly to tie peoples' real concerns—about
traffic nightmares, ill-managed or unmanaged toxic
wastes, landfills and sewage, rapid-fire physical growth
eclipsing the Northwest's traditional setting and way
of life—to the issue of governance. We made the
point right up front: None of these problems that con-
cern people so deeply can be solved without
government. It's correct, we suggested, that people
today are finding more and more governments, special
authorities, and agencies in their hair.
But the point, we said, is that the people are getting
less and less true governance—governance that ties
the problems together, sets priorities, and comes up
with coherent solutions on the critically important
metropolitan-wide level. Good governance, for ex-
ample, would dictate that responsibility for multiple
environmental problems—water, air, landfills, toxics—
eventually be unified. Simply because the problems
are inextricably intertwined, the so-called "solution"
for one can imperil another, and sometimes common
solutions can, in fact, be devised.
The issue of distrust of government relates rather
directly, it would seem, to environmental lawmakers
and rule-setters and regulators. I think ex-EPA chief
William Ruckelshaus is right when he notes that the
U.S. has gone about as far as it can with the "com-
mand and control" formula of environmental
protection—name a hazard, identify a culprit industry,
tell that industry precisely how to control the menace,
and prosecute if it doesn't. The system, Ruckelshaus
says, in effect licenses industries to spew set amounts
of pollutants into the environment. "There is no in-
centive to clean up beyond those limits," he adds.
"But there is a good deal of incentive to exceed those
limits."
To that we add the obvious fact that the new genera-
tion of environmental problems is far tougher: the
"greenhouse effect" of global climate change, acid
rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, farm runoff, in-
visible contamination of underground water supplies,
overflowing landfills. The time has unquestionably
come to temper conventional tough-fisted environ-
mental regulation, to focus on the rich potential of
incentive-based systems, based on making industries
and consumers bear the true cost of the pollution they
cause or the land and resources they waste.
And this will particularly be true as we identify each
farmer, each suburban homeowner, each user of
motor oil or pesticides or what have you—that is to
say, all of us—as the environmental problem. Harsh
regulation may simply turn people against environ-
mental progress. Constant and effective education
combined with cooperative, market-based incentives
will unquestionably, in the long run, work a helluvalot
better.
As you work on your coastal agendas, it's obviously es-
sential that you cultivate your local press—consciously
and systematically. The general strategy, I believe, has
to be to make editors feel they have a major role in the
future of their area and state's environment, that they
do make a difference, and that taking time to cover
7

-------
One good tactic is to set some goals and make them
public—the press loves an opportunity to keep score.
future of their area and state's environment, that they
do make a difference, and that taking time to cover
coastal and water quality issues can provide some
darned good copy, too.
Next, one has to understand that there is a very great
difference between news pages and editorial pages.
Different sets of actors, oftentimes with very different
mindsets to deal with. And differing opportunities for
you. When a major environmental initiative is just get-
ting organized, for example, its leaders may find the
editorial page the best place to market their concept.
Editorial pages like to traffic in ideas; they'll consider
them even before there's a track record. The regular
news reporter, by contrast, may take a look at a new ef-
fort, report back to his editor that nothing's really
been achieved yet, and give the story a couple of para-
graphs at most.
One good tactic, incidentally, is to set some goals and
make them public—the press loves an opportunity to
keep score. And when you announce a success at a
press conference, announce a new goal. That provides
much greater credibility; it makes it crystal clear to
reporters that they aren't dealing in puffery alone.
One rule to remember is simple enough. Don't be a
POB—a Print Oriented Bastard, ignoring television
and radio. It's true that print is a much better way to
reach the movers and shakers. But most people, statis-
tically, do get their news from television and radio.
To that I would add that we print types tend to be pret-
ty snotty about the quality of what passes for news on
local television. And with good reason: if you want
evidence, just turn on the local news in almost any city
in America and judge whether the coverage is any-
thing more than breathlessly superficial.
On top of that, there's the space problem. Almost all
the words on a half hour daily television news show
could be printed on two-thirds of an average
newspaper page. So one has to think very selectively
about what he hopes to get on TV or the radio. When
you think TV, think of a minute and half. And of just
a couple of major things that you want to get across.
That counsel does not, of course, hold for public
television, and more particularly for public radio,
where there are rich opportunities for discussing en-
vironmental issues and their full significance for our
communities.
I do think that as environmental problems get ever
more complex, it's going to take a major effort to get
media people to understand that there are no quick
fixes, few simple cut-and-dried answers. Sometimes
the problem is that the media person likes to think of
him- or herself as environmentally sensitive and then
exhibits a knee-jerk reaction when balance would be
more appropriate.
Here in the Northwest, for example, there's great con-
cern these days about the lower Columbia
River—water testing showing elevated temperatures,
eagles and marine mammals showing high levels of
pesticide derivatives, port districts seeking dredging
permits even though the spoils might bury wetlands.
Washington and Oregon had an opportunity to name
the lower Columbia an "estuary of national signifi-
cance" and pick up some $4 million in federal aid.
Governor Gardner decided against that, however, op-
ting for a state- and local-funded study of the river's
problems. Environmentalists jumped on the governor
for selling out to port officials and localities hell-bent
on development. And they had a point—local objec-
tions were the trigger point.
Somewhat lost in the controversy, however, were
equally valid concerns: Would federal aid have
brought anything more than an added level of
bureaucracy? Can Oregon and Washington do the job
more quickly and efficiently? I don't profess to know
the answers to those questions, but they are worth
posing. The media's job in that case, I thought, should
have been somewhat less concentration on whether
Gardner has made a political capitulation to local offi-
8

-------
more coverage trying to illuminate the sincerity,
depth, and potential of the two-state survey.
Increasingly in our country, we are not going to be
able to rely on the federal government for network-
ing—the EPA's support for a conference such as this,
for example. But on most fronts, the time is at hand
to focus on building state and local capacity. And to
carry home to people the message that unless they
press for cleaner waters and coordinated environmen-
tal protection in the natural watersheds where they
live, obliging their state and local officials to work
hard toward that goal, the battle may never be well
engaged, much less won. The press's role on issues
like the lower Columbia, for example, then becomes a
constant bird-dogging of governors Gardner and
Goldschmidt, to see if the bistate study is carried out
aggressively, thoughtfully, and in a way that leads to a
clear program of action and protection of the river.
That, in any event, is the exciting work in which you
are all engaged. I thank you again for inviting me to
be with you today.
Introduction Of the Governor
Christine Gregoire, Director
Washington Department of Ecology
Thank you for including me in your conference today.
Obviously, the focus of your conference, "Legislation,
Policy, and Funding to Protect Coastal Waters" is
timely and necessary. We all know that forward-look-
ing environmental legislation, sound environmental
policy, and adequate funding for environmental
protection don't happen without leadership.
Many of you here today helped lay the cornerstones
for Washington's Puget Sound Water Quality Pro-
gram. The progress we've already made in Puget
Sound and the promise of continued success speaks
well of your leadership.
It is my pleasure to introduce Washington's Governor
Booth Gardner as your keynote speaker this morning
because he is truly an environmental leader.
The imprint of Booth's leadership can be seen in the
legislation, policies, and funding that underlay
Washington's effort to protect Puget Sound. Booth's
leadership is largely responsible for our state taking
the initiative to protect coastal waters.
Washington state is now moving on the most encom-
passing environmental intiative in our history. We
call it 2010. Very briefly, I would like to tell you about
the leadership Booth Gardner has provided for 2010.
First, 2010 is Booth's vision of how to manage change
into the next century to preserve and protect our
state's environment. I'm sure you can appreciate what
a remarkable achievement the 2010 Report is when I
say that in one year, policymakers, experts, and a
diverse group of citizens inside and outside of govern-
ment: 1) evaluated current conditions and important
trends; 2) assessed major threats to our environment;
3) assessed our ability to manage these threats; and 4)
developed a preliminary list of action priorities.
If you've been involved in government policymaking,
you know it took leadership to produce the 2010
Report. Booth provided that leadership.
I want to recognize the governor for his leadership in
developing a strategy to make sure his vision for our
environmental future won't just become another
"good idea" that can't be implemented. That's why
we're working in partnership with legislators; local,
state, and federal agencies; leaders in business and in-
dustry; and citizens across the state to shape the 2010
agenda.
Part education, part policymaking, the 2010 outreach
program is designed to develop shared goals for our fu-
ture and the collective will to realize these goals. 2010
9

-------
will culminate in an action plan that will guide our en-
vironmental policy making over the next two decades.
It is my pleasure to introduce the person whose leader-
ship has enabled us to develop innovative, visionary,
and effective environmental programs in Washington
state, Governor Booth Gardner.
Governor's Address
Governor Booth Gardner
State of Washington
Good morning and welcome to day two of "Turning
the Tide." Today, I want to share with you my personal
observations, both about how we've been able to
develop a comprehensive strategy to clean up and
protect the Sound, and where we go from here.
In many ways, Puget Sound is our lifeline in the state of
Washington, vital to transportation and critical in-
dustries like seafood and tourism. But much as we
have enjoyed its many blessings, Puget Sound has also
been shamefully abused and neglected.
As recently as 20 years ago, huge quantities of sewer
sludge and untreated industrial waste went directly into
the Sound. Areas like Commencement Bay in Tacoma
and Port Gardner Bay in Everett were practically life-
less. More than 900 man-made chemicals have been
detected in the Sound.
The good news is, we've made some important gains in
correcting our past mistakes. There have been three
distinct phases to our overall Puget Sound cleanup and
protection effort.
First came identification of the problem. In the early
1980s we learned that we had polluted "hot spots"
spread around the Sound. Pictures of diseased fish and
stories about contaminated shellfish beds started crop-
ping up in newspapers and other publications.
Scientists studying the Sound issued stern warnings,
and some private citizens and local and state govern-
ment leaders voiced open alarm.
We also had become aware of the problems with the
Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, and the tremen-
dous amount of effort and resources required to bring
these great bodies of water back to life. So all the warn-
ing signs were there.
Even so, some people argued we didn't have a prob-
lem. They said Puget Sound has this excellent flushing
capability that would send all of our pollutants out to
sea. Now we know that it's exactly the opposite: that
some areas never get flushed and the water and
whatever pollutants it carries stays rights here.
Organizationally at that time, we were not at all
equipped to deal with the problems we were seeing.
There were more than 450 governments, from sewer
and water districts to cities, counties, and the state—
that had some responsibility for the Sound's welfare.
There was no strong central organization, and the
result was inconsistent or conflicting actions, or no ac-
tion at all. We also had no detailed assessment of the
problems, or a systematic and comprehensive plan to
address them. And finally, there was no commitment to
fund what needed to be done on a sustained, long-term
basis.
During this early phase, we had a 21-member Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority that brought some at-
tention, focus, and commitment to bear on the
problems we knew existed. But it was evident that the
Authority did not have the tools to do its job.
Phase two began in 1985, when we redesigned and
streamlined the Authority, directing it to prepare and
adopt a water quality management plan to produce a
unified and comprehensive protection effort for Puget
Sound.
Since then, the Authority has done an outstanding job
of bringing a much-needed focus to this issue, putting
10

-------
We can no longer afford to deal with problems after they occur.
together a unified and comprehensive plan for the
Sound, and educating people in this state about the na-
ture of the problems and what needs to be done about
them.
In 1986 we passed the state's Clean Water Act, which
provides a dedicated source of revenue for water
quality programs around the state, including a sig-
nificant portion dedicated to Puget Sound cleanup.
Now we are moving into phase three. That is, getting
the plan off the desk and putting our energies into im-
plementation.The question we face today is, how do
we set ourselves up for the most effective implementa-
tion over the long haul? By law, the Water Quality
Authority will disappear unless we take positive action
to continue its existence.
Perhaps the Authority's major accomplishment to
date has been holding our feet to the fire, and we
know this focused, visible, and independent oversight
effort must continue.
I believe we also need to make the Authority more ef-
fective in overseeing implementation of the plan, and
we need to increase the level of coordination with the
implementing entities to ensure that what is required
is also realistic and practical.
We also need to work more closely with other environ-
mental planning efforts. Through an effort we call
Environment 2010, we're developing a long-term ac-
tion plan to protect Washington's environmental and
natural resource heritage and lead us to where we
want to be 20 years from now.
Today there are over three million people living in the
12 Puget Sound counties, and the projections are that
another million people will be living in those counties
by the year 2010. Close coordination with our Growth
Strategies Commission is essential if we are to manage
our projected growth in ways which can minimize the
impact on the Sound.
The irony is that the quality of life that Puget Sound
represents is perhaps the biggest single reason people
are attracted here. And if we don't act wisely, we may
be guilty of loving the Sound to death. We are now at
a critical juncture, where planning must be translated
into action. It is not a question of whether we can
protect the Sound. We have no choice. The fact is, we
must!
Preserving our environment for future generations
will require fundamental changes in the way we live
our lives, personally, publicly, and corporately.
Government alone cannot establish a vision of our en-
vironmental future. And government cannot change
the patterns of every individual's behavior.
Until now, our environmental stewardship has been
largely reactive. But we can no longer afford to deal
with problems after they occur.
As the stewards of our natural resources, we still can
decide how to manage the rapid change around us,
and we can turn the tide, to get us to our preferred fu-
ture.
But the planet's capacity to forgive is at the breaking
point. Time is at a premium. We'd better get busy.
Thank you.
Keynote Address: The Federal Role in
Estuary Protection
Robert H. Wayland, III, Deputy Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to you
today and am proud that EPA is co-sponsoring such
an exciting conference. I would like to congratulate
the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, which, with
the assistance of the Washington Department of Ecol-
ogy, has done the excellent job in arranging this
1
1

-------
conference and in bringing everyone together to share
their experiences with restoring and protecting our
coasts.
I would also like to welcome the many state legislators
and officials, as well as the representatives of local
government, who spared time from their busy
schedules to come here to Seattle to share the "behind-
the-scenes stories" of what has worked and, in some
cases, not worked in addressing coastal pollution
problems.
You've asked me to address the federal role in turning
the tide. In a moment, I do want to talk about that
role, focusing primarily on EPA's approaches—tradi-
tional and emerging—and hopefully illustrate how
federal/state/local roles are complementary to a com-
mon objective of coastal and estuarine protection. But
first I want to review briefly what is at stake.
Coastal Resources
You are all familiar with the vital statistics of our
nation's coastal waters—they are invaluable economi-
cally, ecologically, and aesthetically. They are
nurseries, spawning and feeding grounds for many im-
portant species of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. They
support the bulk of our commercial fisheries—75 per-
cent of commercial species are dependent on estuaries
at a time when health concerns and other considera-
tions are prompting a shift in the U.S. diet toward fish
and other seafood. Our coastlines provide a recreation-
al haven for millions of boaters and tourists every year.
But there are costs associated with our enjoyment of
the coastal environment. Earlier this year I partici-
pated in workshops to collect information for the
Presidential Task Force weighing the future of offshore
oil development. In Key West, I asked the superinten-
dent of a state park where the greatest current threat
was to the health of America's only living reef system.
She replied, "we're loving them to death." And the
natural beauty, the abundance, and the recreational op-
portunities that propel so many of us to the shoreline
for vacations also draw more of us to the seaside for
year-round living.
NOAA's latest survey of coastal county populations
documented the trend: these counties are already twice
as densely populated than the U.S. overall, and are ex-
pected to grow at rates which will make them nearly
three times as densely populated by the turn of the cen
tury.
This population influx has, in turn, put great stress on
coastal waters as the receiving bodies for all the addi-
tional inputs resulting from a multitude of activities in
the watersheds. Eutrophic bays, toxic-contaminated
fish, bacterial contamination of shellfish, beach
closures, loss of wetlands, are all indicators of the
stress.
While we can be encouraged that one major source of
pollution—ocean dumping—is winding down as re-
quired by the Ocean Dumping Ban Act, we need to
focus on what is now widely recognized as the major
threat to our sensitive coastal ecosystems—land-based
sources. We need to concentrate on both cleanup of al-
ready contaminated water and pollution prevention to
protect from further stresses.
State and Local Initiatives
I am impressed with the many efforts at the state, local
and grassroots levels to meet the challenge of protect-
ing and restoring the environmental quality of our near
coastal waters and their living resources. You have
been hearing some of the highlights at this conference:
Innovative land use/growth measures:
•	Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Maryland's Critical
Areas Law involving density zoning around the
Bay.
•	New Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act,
requiring land-use planning to regulate water
quality.
12

-------
We need to concentrate on both cleanup of already
contaminated water and pollution prevention to protect from
further stresses.
Regional cooperation:
•	Cape Cod Commission Act to regulate develop-
ment and designate critical areas of concern
linked to coastal water protection, which has
passed the Massachusetts House and is pending in
the State Senate.
•	Great Lakes Action Plans, Areas of Concern, and
International Joint Commission Agreement with
Canada, Great Lakes Protection Fund.
•	Washington Centennial Clean Water Fund, Puget
Sound Water Quality Act, Puget Sound Financing
Plan, and guidebook for local governments,
providing environmental expertise to local plan-
ning agencies.
Citizens and the media:
•	Numerous examples of successful efforts by
citizen activists and the media in building
grassroots support for pioneering coastal legisla-
tion.
But as impressive as these efforts are, the federal
government should not and does not expect the protec-
tion and restoration of coastal areas to be shouldered
solely by state and local government.
Federal Role—Legislative Branch
Before turning to Executive Branch actions to comple-
ment state and local initiatives, Iwantto brieffy not©
the possibility of legislation focused on coastal protec-
tion. Though Congressis currently preoccupied with
needed revisions to the Clean Air Act, interest in coas-
tal and ocean issues is strong. The last Congress
produced the Marine Plastic Pollution Research Con-
trol Act, Medical Waste TrackingAct, Degradable
Plastic Ring Carrier Act, Organotin Antifouling Paint
Act, and Ocean Dumping Ban Act.
Comprehensive bills introduced in the House—H.R.
2647 (Studds/Hughes)—and on the Senate side—S.
1178 (Mitchell) and S.1179 (Lautenberg)—build on
and take cognizance of the direction set with Section
320 of the Water Quality Act establishing the Nation-
al Estuary Program and linkages to the Coastal Zone
Management Act. EPA hopes to explore issues in
these early bills with their authors and to regularly ap-
prise them of progress in the National Estuary
Program. Now let's talk about the basis on which we
hope that progress will be realized.
Giving EPA's Traditional Role a Natural
Resource Focus
Traditionally, EPA had implemented national
regulatory programs. The model had generally been
to establish ambient standards for air or water quality,
develop performance standards for "source
categories" of major discharges or emitters, apply
these through capacity-specific permits, then monitor
compliance and take enforcement actions to remedy
and deter violations. States have often acted as field
implementers. In addition, hazardous waste handlers
are subject to federal requirements as in the introduc-
tion into commerce and conditions of use of pesticides
and certain other toxic chemicals.
In many instances* these traditional activities are
directly relevant to coastal protection. Hey will con-
tinue, and, indeed, EPA is looking to how they can be
made more effective in addressing the unique needs of
coastal ecosystems, as for example in developing sedi-
ment criteria and marine water quality standards.
Research has been and will remain an important com-
ponent of the federal role in environmental
protection. Scientific and technical knowledge by
which m improve our ability io characterize
problems, develop solutions, and monitor progress
can most efficiently be pursued on a national scale,
taportant research topics, such asttsridty and the sig-
nificance of the sea surface microlayer, can ftfd fcffarts
of all levels of government.
13

-------
Important research work regarding coastal and marine
ecosystems is undertaken by the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) of
the Commerce Department and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior. EPA
has a relatively small but important share of federal re-
search resources for coastal and oceans matters.
Recognizing the importance of efforts such as those
being highlighted here, the federal research estab-
lishment needs to and is expanding our view of who the
"consumers" of research are and should be, to include
state and local colleagues.
Historically, the federal government has financed a sub-
stantial share of state pollution control programs, and
federal revenues have been passed through to local
governments to fund some of their efforts as well.
However, in the face of major federal deficits and
Gramm-Rudman, future support on a large scale is
problematic.
Emerging Roles
The evolving nature of environmental problems and
challenges is prompting EPA to undertake important
new roles. We are also being pushed in new directions
by a recognition that new kinds of solutions must be
developed to deal with the non-industrial sources
which represent major contributions to current genera-
tion of problems. The new roles of EPA which are
beginning to emerge are: as a catalyst for state/local ac-
tion, a coordinator of federal programs, a facilitator of
information exchange, and a monitor of program suc-
cess. Let me elaborate:
Catalyst for action: By using seed money/demonstra-
tion grants, as with 12 national estuary programs, EPA
seeks to energize local institutions to address locally
important resource and environmental protection
needs. Flexibility is a watchword... in institutional ar-
rangements, content of programs, method of approach,
etc. Clarity of purpose, commitment to action, expecta-
tion of self-sufficiency also typify this role. Technical
assistance and in-kind support are key techniques EPA
will use.
Federal agency coordinator: This role is being pursued
on two levels. Considerable success has been realized
when focused regionally or locally on tangible
problems/opportunities, as with the National Estuary
Program. For example, in the Puget Sound Estuary
Program, the Corps of Engineers made a major con-
tribution through development of the Puget Sound
Atlas.
At the national level, there has been a renewed focus
of effort for two reasons. First, to avoid conflict/
duplication. Second, and perhaps more importantly, to
look for leveraging opportunities. Current federal ex-
penditures for natural resource protection total some
$50 billion, while the current EPA budget comprises
less than 10 percent of that.
USDA's programs directly affect farm income and food
prices, but the several billions in federal outlays, by in-
fluencing which crops are planted on how many acres,
also helps determine the amount and kind of chemical
inputs to farming. In most estuary programs, like
other surface water programs, agriculture nonpoint
source loadings of nutrient and pesticides are a major
issue for concern. EPA has recently enjoyed unprece-
dented opportunities to advise USDA on the content
of the 1990 Farm Bill.
Last fall, EPA and NOAA executed an agreement on
the relationship of the Coastal Zone Management Pro-
gram and the National Estuary Program, closely
linking the processes which are mandated for each.
Facilitator of information exchange: EPA hopes to
develop useful tools for state/local decision makers,
such as the primer on mechanisms to finance estuaries
programs, and, as through this conference, encourages
exchange of information among state/local participants
in programs. Hard copy reports, personal networking,
accessible computer databases are among the many
tools being employed.
14

-------
New institutions must evolve to confront the environmental
problems of the *90s and beyond.
Monitor of Program Performance: At the national
level, we should be making sure that appropriate infor-
mation is collected and maintained so that in the
future we can evaluate the effectiveness of environ-
mental protection efforts and adjust or redirect them
as may be necessary. There is a major thrust in EPA
to move toward developing and managing by environ-
mental, rather than administrative, measures of
program performance.
Is EPA comfortable or confident with the emerging
roles I've outlined? They are a break with tradition.
And some early experience with similar efforts—the
CWA Section 208 program, EPA's integrated Environ-
mental Management Program—did not transition well
from problem assessment/planning to implementation.
Making that transition successfully in the National Es-
tuary Program requires, in my judgment, three things:
•	Availability of an adequate, reliable, non-federal
funding base.
•	Commitment by local and state decision makers to
adopt controversial and potentially costly control
measures beyond federal requirements.
•	Public understanding of the problems and oppor-
tunities, which is a prerequisite for the first two.
Estuaries Protection in a Broader Context
EPA needs and wants these programs to be successful.
New institutions must evolve to confront the environ-
mental problems of the '90s and beyond.
Global institutions must emerge confront climate
change, habitat destruction, etc. Success with the
Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depletion is an en-
couraging early sign.
Multi-state and multi-jurisdictional institutions must
emerge to address such problems as groundwater con-
tamination and endangered species protection, where
principal threats include development and farm prac-
tices which cannot be effectively addressed through
traditional national programs.
To address these later concerns, as well as to address
coastal and estuary protection, state legislative action
will frequently be required. Can state legislators turn
the tide?
Shelly modestly commented that "Poets are the unack-
nowledged legislators of the world." I'm hoping and
trusting that in this audience, and in state houses
around the country, there are legislators who are un-
acknowledged poets, prepared to marshall their
creativity and appreciation of nature on behalf of the
treasure of our coasts.
The federal government is committed to a partnership
to protect and preserve these coastal resources. Let's
build on the excellent foundation of this conference
and make it happen.
15

-------
Chesapeake Bay
Presenter:
Maryland State Senator Gerald W. Winegrad
Maryland Senate
90 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 841-3578
Focus of effort:
In December 1983 the first interstate Chesapeake Bay
Agreement was signed signaling the beginning of a
comprehensive long range effort to restore the
Chesapeake Bay. Spurred by a decline in valuable
fisheries and bay grasses and a detailed EPA study on
the Bay, the states of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania,
and the District of Columbia, with Federal participa-
tion, have been working to reduce nutrients and toxic
chemicals entering the Bay.
Successes:
Maryland has approved over 330 new positions and
over $350 million for its cleanup efforts since 1983. An
EPA Chesapeake Bay Office was established in An-
napolis to help coordinate the cleanup, and $13 million
in special federal funding has been approved each year.
Many major laws have been enacted by the states:
MD's Critical Area Law, restricting development
around the Bay; phosphate bans in detergents;
stormwater and sediment control measures; nontidal
wetland protection in MD. Substantial financial com-
mitment has been made to remove phosphorous,
nitrogen, and chlorine from sewage treatment plants
and to establish best management practices on
farmland.
Problems/Challenges:
Population growth and sprawl in the Bay region con-
tinues to convert forest land and agricultural land and
results, through more pollution loads, in delaying the
effectiveness of the cleanup efforts. The land use issue
beyond the critical area and nontidal wetlands has not
been addressed. Also, a comprehensive toxics strategy
is only beginning to be implemented. Enforcement
also remains problematic.
Key Players:
Former Maryland Governor Harry Hughes, former
U.S. Senator Charles Mathias, EPA (Bay study), legis-
lators and citizen organizations.
Recommendations to other states:
1.	Comprehensive, credible analysis/study of water
quality problems needs to be completed.
2.	Institutional structure must be established for for-
mal restoration—defining federal, state, and local
relationships.
3.	Grass roots effort is essential to success.
4.	Governor(s) must take active lead with direct invol-
vement of key legislators.
5.	Innovation and boldness in restoration efforts must
be encouraged.
For more information, contact:
Ann Swanson, Executive Director
Chesapeake Bay Commission
60 West Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
Senator Gerald W. Winegrad
(see above)
Presenter:
Stephen K. Whiteway, County Administrator,
Richmond, VA
P.O. Box 965
Warsaw, VA 22572
(804) 333-3415
16

-------
Focus of effort:
The development of a comprehensive shoreline
protection and management plan for a county which
has yet to adopt zoning under the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act requirements.
For more information, contact:
Stephen K. Whiteway, County Administrator
William Duncanson, Planner
County of Richmond
P.O. Box 956
Warsaw, VA 22572
(804) 333-3415
Successes:
1.	Completion of a shoreline planning element of the
county comprehensive plan.
2.	Revision and adoption of a countywide subdivision
ordinance which provides for extensive environmental
protection.
3.	Development of a computerized resource informa-
tion system.
4.	Establishment of a core group of citizens educated
in water quality issues.
Problems/Challenges:
The greatest problem/challenge has been to go into
the project willing to accept the results of a consensus-
based citizens' task force, which included people of all
persuasions, from realtors and developers to active
conservationists.
Key Players:
23 county citizens, county administrator, staff of
Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Recommendations to other states:
The success of this project was based largely on the
decision to provide an open-ended atmosphere of
education and consensus for 23 citizens, the majority
of whom owned waterfront property and would be
directly affected by any new regulations resulting from
their recommendations. The project included a 12-
month educational component in which specialists
from all types of research and environmental manage-
ment agencies and groups discussed various issues.
Presenter:
William C. Baker, President
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
162 Prince George Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 268-8816
Focus of effort:
In its broadest sense, the focus of the multijurisdiction-
al Chesapeake Bay Program is to save the Chesapeake
Bay. More precisely, the ultimate goal is a restoration
of the water quality to a level that will support a heal-
thy and diverse array of living resources—oysters,
clams, crabs, striped bass, perch, shad, and other fish
as well as a healthy and widespread population of sub-
merged aquatic vegetation. Although not specifically
stated, there is an implication that we are striving for
an improvement in the quality of life in the region
through preservation of open space and other habitat,
abundant forest land, healthy and extensive
marshlands, and a maintenance of the cultural
heritage of the Bay, which includes a viable agricul-
tural industry as well as a commercial fishing industry.
Successes:
There have been extraordinary successes in the
Chesapeake Bay Program. As late as 1980, officials at
the highest levels of federal and state government
refused to even acknowledge that there was a pollu-
tion problem in Chesapeake Bay of a magnitude to
affect the entire system. Today, everyone from the
President to area congressmen and senators to the
governors to elected state and local officials, as well as
senior bureaucrats at the federal, state, and local level,
17

-------
The greatest challenge has been to be willing to accept the results
of a consensus-based citizens' task force.
agree that the Chesapeake Bay is in serious trouble
and only a massive effort by government and the
private sector will save it.
I'roblems/Challenges:
The greatest problem in turning the tide of public sen-
timent with regard to the Chesapeake Bay's condition
was achieving an understanding that declines in the
Bay's living resources (fish, shellfish, and vegetation),
were due to overwhelming changes in the health of the
system and the management of its species rather than
simply natural cycles. Garnering an adequate amount
of public attention for the Bay's decline was a chal-
lenge. Eventually, however, it was public pressure
that turned the tide. Today, the greatest challenge
that we face is one of moving quickly enough and for-
cefully enough to overcome the effects of an
accelerating regional population.
Key Players:
Too many people were involved to list, but some of
the more notable players included: Senator Charles
McC. Mathias, Bill Ruckelshaus, Gov. Chuck Robb,
Gov. Dick Thornburgh, and all of the Bay area en-
vironmental activists who pushed and prodded the
government into action. In addition, President
Reagan and his two environmental "deputies," Jim
Watt and Ann Gorsuch, had a major effect on chang-
ing the way government dealt with the Bay, because
they were responsible for an extraordinary nationwide
backlash that produced a resurgence of environmental
activism.
Today, the key players include the three governors—
Baliles, Schaefer, and Casey—as well as a number of
state and local politicians. There has, however, been
no U.S. senator or congressman who has taken on the
leadership of Senator Mathias. Now, with greater ac-
ceptance that the "Save the Bay" movement is
politically the right thing to do, nearly all elected offi-
cials are helping to carry the banner.
Recommendations to other states:
Focusing the issue in its simplest and most fundamen-
tal format is the key. Much of our success in the
Chesapeake Bay area has been, I believe, because we
have reduced the situation to simply the life or death
of the Bay. Inaction will simply result in the Bay's
demise, while concerted action holds out the promise
for saving the system.
Furthermore, and as a result of the above, constituent
pressure on elected and appointed officials has been
very strong. Decision makers have perceived that it is
to their political advantage to support a strong save
the Bay effort.
Finally, the establishment of a centralized advocacy or-
ganization with broad public support and a
professional staff will pay great dividends. The group
should have the respect of the governmental leaders
and the ability to negotiate compromise when neces-
sary. It must, however, know when to "draw the line
in the sand" and establish a position from which it will
not retreat.
For more information, contact:
Ann Powers
Vice President/General Counsel
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
162 Prince George Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
Joe Maroon
Virginia Executive Director
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
1001 East Main Street
Suite 815, Heritage Building
Richmond, VA 23219
Scott Burns
University of Maryland Law School
Environmental Law Clinic
510 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
18

-------
Charles Fox
Environmental Policy Institute
218 D. Street, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
Presenter:
Ann Pesiri Swanson, Executive Director
Chesapeake Bay Commission
60 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 263-3420
Focus of effort:
The Chesapeake Bay Commission is the result of joint
legislative actions taken in three states—Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The legislation that has
created the Chesapeake Bay Commission has served
as a model for similar efforts in Long Island Sound,
Lake Champlain, Lake Pontchartrain, and others.
In 1976 Senator Charles McC. Mathias of Maryland re-
quested a five-year, $25 million appropriation (this
eventually grew to seven years and $27 million) for the
Environmental Protection Agency to conduct an in-
depth study of the Bay and the factors which were
adversely affecting its environmental quality.
In 1977 a bi-state governors' conference on the Bay
was held and reached consensus on two important is-
sues. First, there was no certainty or universal
agreement concerning the cause for the decline in the
Bay's resources. Secondly, there was no government en-
tity which was able to focus its attention on the
Chesapeake Bay as a single, natural ecological unit.
In 1978 the General Assemblies of Virginia and
Maryland, through concurrent resolutions, created the
Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory Commission.
The entire two-year study process involved an exten-
sive amount of discussion and compromise on all
sides. The final recommendation of the Advisory
Committee was to create a "Chesapeake Bay Commis-
sion" which would play a continuing coordinative and
advisory role for the legislatures of the two states.
The Commission works both as a full commission,
developing policy guidelines that apply to all three
states, and as individual state delegations, working on
specific pieces of legislation, regulations, and budget
initiative that carry out these tri-state cooperative
policies.
The primary purpose of the Commission is to assist
the legislatures of the three states in responding to
problems of Baywide concern, and to encourage
cooperative, coordinated planning and action among
the signatories to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment and their executive agencies.
Successes:
Fisheries and living resources management:
Non-resident fishing license: 1982 Case-Tangier Island.
1984: First significant influx of Maryland watermen
into the lower Bay crab fishery since the settlement of
the case. There were a number of complaints that the
fishery was being overfished and that Maryland crab-
bers were being given an unfair market advantage by
buyers in Maryland.
Many actions were taken—applications were required
for non-resident harvesters licenses and appropriate
gear licenses; daily catches were limited.
A bill was enacted to prohibit crabbing between sunset
and two hours before sunrise, thus eliminating the pos-
sibility of a "round-the-clock" fishery.
The cull law was modified to make culling require-
ments in Virginia identical to those of Maryland so
that Maryland and Virginia harvests would be equally
attractive to buyers.
19

-------
Changes like these will not, of course, prevent the
entry of Maryland watermen in the Virginia spring crab
fishery, nor will they eliminate the inevitable conflicts
between resident and non-resident watermen. But
these laws do attempt to make the laws of the two
states more compatible.
Fish passage: revolving loan fund to finance construc-
tion of fish ladders and passageways. The fund will
provide low-interest loans for the construction of fish
passageways at municipally and privately owned dams.
There are at least five Si million initiatives to breach
dams in the Bay region.
Agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution:
Cost share programs (85:15 in MD and VA, 80:20 in
PA)
Critical areas require all farms in critical areas to have
a soil and water conservation plan and until that time,
they must have a 25-foot filter strip.
Nutrient management legislation in PA requires that
livestock operations have a nutrient management plan
and are implementing it. Gives time frames for im-
plementation based on whether you are a priority
operation or not.
Sediment control:
In 1970 MD became the first state in the country to
have a state sediment control law. In the early days, soil
conservation districts served as the permit-issuing
authority. The DNR is responsible for developing mini-
mum criteria and standards which must be
incorporated into local programs, reviewing and ap-
proving local ordinances, and evaluating the
effectiveness of local programs.
Prior to 1984 the state had no means of ensuring that
local governments would adequately enforce approved
programs. Noncompliance rates were very high.
The 1984 initiative transferred enforcement authority
to the state, with provisions for subsequent delegation
of authority to local jurisdictions. The state will
delegate enforcement authority only to those localities
which can demonstrate enforcement capability com-
parable to that of the Department.
Virginia enacted their law in 1973. Again, it required
the state to establish erosion and sediment control
standards to be utilized by local governments in
developing ordinances to limit the sediment runoff
from construction and other defined land-disturbance
activities.
After review, enforcement was stepped up in 1985.
State and local jurisdictions were granted the authority
to stop work orders, and the law was revised to include
the option for imposing civil, rather than criminal,
penalties for violation of the law.
Pennsylvania's Clean Stream Law requires that a con-
servation plan be developed for any land-disturbing
activity, including agricultural practices. Pennsylvania
is one of only four states with an erosion and sediment
control statute which contain enforcement and penalty
provisions which are applicable to agricultural ac-
tivities.
Law was evaluated—enforcement a real problem. Ex-
isting laws may also prove a barrier to program
effectiveness. In PA developments of less than 25
acres are exempted from the DER permit process.
State-funded construction and maintenance are also oc-
casionally subjected to less intense inspection and
enforcement activities.
Nutrient control strategies/sewage treatment plants:
A 40 percent reduction and three-phase approach help
the legislative community realize that we are in it for
the long haul and that it is a multi-faceted program.
Also helps them to understand that nutrients are
20

-------
Newspapers used to report on what man did on the Bay. Now
the focus is on what man is doing to the Bay.
stored in the sediments and that we may not see imme-
diate results.
Revolving loan funds: Virginia - $20 Million;
Maryland - $6 million; Pennsylvania - $25 million
bond issue.
Phosphate ban: Only states without are Delaware and
West Virginia. Much of Delaware has a de facto ban.
20-30 percent reductions have occurred where plans
have not had P-removal. Excellent example of
regional cooperation.
Toxics:
TBT ban: Bill banned the use of TBT on most recrea-
tional vessels, and limited its use on all vessels.
Emergency legislation enacted it immediately upon
signature. Federally, it would have been hung up in
the courts for several years.
Pesticide Control Board: 11-member board authorized
to contract for studies, appoint advisory committees,
require adequate testing and safety of pesticides, and
require that individuals are adequately trained and ob-
serve appropriate safety practices.
The board can adopt regulations concerning registra-
tion of pesticides, revoking, suspending, or denying
licenses, etc.
The board may also adopt regulations to restrict or
prohibit sale, use, or disposal of pesticide containers
under certain conditions.
Land use:
Critical Areas and Preservation Act
Growth: Recognized the need to go beyond—to
protect the entire watershed. Growth commissions
are now reviewing implications of growth and ex-
pected to recommend legislative actions.
Additional areas of focus: stormwater management, ac-
cess, water quality standards, use, shoreline erosion.
Key Players:
Jurisdictionally, the Bay has several "managers." The
Bay proper is split almost equally into an upper, less
saline section in Maryland and a more saline, lower
portion in Virginia. The two states share respon-
sibility for the governance of a wide variety of interests
that compete for the use of the Bay's tidal waters. The
entire drainage of the Chesapeake Bay extends much
further—its 64,000 square miles include the District of
Columbia, one-third of Pennsylvania, and smaller por-
tions of New York, Delaware, and West Virginia. All
in all, over 2,000 local governments share respon-
sibility for some aspect of the Bay's management,
protection, or at times destruction.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission is composed of 21
members—seven members from each state. In each
state, five of the members are legislators; the sixth is
the governor or his/her appointed designee; and the
seventh is a citizen representative.
For more information, contact:
Ann Swanson (see above)
Presenter:
Lawrence Latane, Reporter
Richmond Times Dispatch
P.O. Box 151
Warsaw, VA 22572
(804) 333-3461
Focus of effort:
In the 1930s and 1950s, the Times-Dispatch chronicled
the periodic outbreaks of the Chesapeake Bay oyster
wars in which Maryland Marine Police attempted to
21

-------
prevent Virginia watermen from illegally dredging
oysters in the Potomac River.
The police occasionally fired upon the Virginians, even-
tually killing one, putting a stop to the illegal harvest.
Newspapers used to report what man did on the Bay.
Now, however, the focus is on what man is doing to the
Bay.
Increasingly since the 1960s and especially since the
1980s with the revelations of the damage point and
nonpoint source pollution are causing, newspapers
around the bay's watershed are examining the bay's
predicament and the multitude of efforts underway to
restore its health.
Last summer, Virginia attempted to create regional
land use rules to protect the Bay's shoreline from the
effects of development.
The summer-long process of meetings and hearings by
the state's Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board
served as an arena in which environmentalists and
home-building interests battled for dominance.
To no one's surprise (and my own disillusionment), the
powerful Realtor-developer-builder lobby prevailed.
The assistance board, whose nine members include
builders and developers, settled on a land use plan that
did not include controversial tightened standards for
septic tank drainfields, which developers had fought.
The state Health Department's staff has now recom-
mended a complete revision of its septic tank
regulation that include proposals even more stringent
than the assistance board considered. Environmen-
talists and developers predict another clash as these
proposals get aired.
22

-------
For more information, contact:
State Senator Robert J. Boggs
(see above)
Presenter:
Michael J. Donahue, Director
Great Lakes Commission
Argus II Building
400 S. 4th Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4816
(313) 665-9135
The Great Lakes
Presenter:
Ohio State Senator Robert J. Boggs
Ohio Senate
Statehouse, Columbus, OH 43216
(614) 644-7718
Focus of effort:
See "Success" section.
Successes:
1.	SB 360 (1984) Great Lakes Charter and Anti-Diver-
sion Efforts.
2.	HB 491 (1988) Phosphate Detergent Reduction
Legislation.
3.	Am JR 15 (1988) Established Ohio Lake Erie
Shore Area Redevelopment Task Force.
4.	HB 111 (1989) Great Lakes Protection Fund.
5.	SB 70 (1988) Coastal Zone Management.
Problems/Challenges:
1.	Loss of wetlands.
2.	Adequate monitoring of water quality both
near-shore and mid-lake.
3.	Combined sewer overflow problem.
Key Players:
Governor, legislators, media, Sierra Club, League of
Women Voters, sporting groups, recreation users.
Recommendations to other states:
Attempt to lay a very broad-based foundation, not a
narrow one, even if that means that some com-
promises must be made.
The public must be made aware of the costs of not
resolving water quality problems, and not just the
costs of resolutions. The support of the governor and
other high-profile individuals is crucial.
Focus of effort:
Policymaking process in the binational Great Lakes
region.
Institutional mechanisms that drive the policymaking
process.
Despite the differences in their physical and
hydrologic characteristics, the three regions (Great
Lakes, Chesapeake, Puget Sound) share striking
similarities in terms of institutional requirements and
management needs. For example, governance arrange-
ment in all three regions tend to be:
1.	Institutional responses to multi-jurisdictional, mul-
tiple use resource management requirements.
2.	"Creatures" of their signatory parties (i.e., fully ac-
countable to political jurisdictions or agencies).
3.	Oriented toward "soft" management approaches
such as coordination, policy development, and ad-
vocacy.
4.	Politically sensitive, flexible, and adaptable.
5.	Active in setting regional agendas for policy, pro-
gram, and legislative needs.
23

-------
The public must be made aware of the costs of not resolving
water quality problems and not just the costs of resolutions.
Further, the institutional arrangements in all three
regions reflect a recognition of the benefits of regional
cooperation. Regional entities promote multi-jurisdic-
tional coordination, consistency, and priority setting;
allow resources to be pooled; provide a mechanism for
monitoring policy issues; and ensure a stronger voice
in regional decision making (i.e., "strength in num-
bers"). In brief, such arrangements offer a "win-win"
scenario for the individual participating jurisdictions
and the region as a whole.
A number of Great Lakes-specific success stories rein-
force this argument and are presented below.
Successes:
The following Great Lakes-specific case studies are
presented to demonstrate how legislative and other
policy remedies at the state level have been successfully
used to either establish or implement a Basin initiative.
1.	The Great Lakes Basin Compact, which created the
Great Lakes Commission, is a classic example of the
impact that state legislators can have when acting in
unison. Model legislation was drafted and adopted by
six of the eight Great Lakes state legislatures within
the Commission. The Commission, which counts 10
state legislators among its 35 commissioners, has
served the region in the areas of policy research, coor-
dination, and advocacy. There are countless examples
of instances over the years where state legislators used
the Commission as a vehicle for collective action on en-
vironmental quality resource management and
economic development issues.
2.	The Commission also served as secretariat to the In-
terstate Legislative Committee on Lake Erie. Under
the leadership of Senator Roy Wilt of Pennsylvania
(also a commissioner of the Great Lakes Commission),
the Committee flourished from its inception in 1969.
In 1982 its mandate was broadened to include all the
Great Lakes, but travel restrictions and competing
priorities related to the recession of the early 1980s
permitted only sporadic meetings. Since that time,
both the Great Lakes commission and the Center for
the Great Lakes have convened such meetings on a fair-
ly regular basis.
3.	The highly successful campaign of the 1970s and
1980s to control the devastating effects of pollutants
was another area where state legislative leadership was
critical. This included efforts to form a federal-state
partnership under the U.S.-Canada Water Quality
Agreement, first signed in 1972. Related to this were
legislative actions—over a 20-year period—to place
limitations on the phosphate content of household
detergents.
4.	The success of more recent regional agreements like
the Great Lakes Charter for water management and
the Toxic Substances Control Agreement will be deter-
mined in no small way by the legislative leadership in
each Great Lakes state.
5.	Over the years, there have been a number of efforts
where legislators from the eight states convened to
develop model laws on Basin issues. This has histori-
cally been an important emphasis of the Great Lakes
Commission.
Problems/Challenges:
Seven areas from the Great Lakes experience provide
"lessons to be learned" in implementing legislative and
other policy remedies.
1. Basin Planning: We in the Great Lakes have not un-
dertaken a comprehensive, basinwide planning since
the days of the U.S. Water Resources Council and
Title II river basin commissions. Our efforts tend to be
issue-specific or location-specific rather than the fully
integrated, cross-media type of approach. The
remedial action plan process for site-specific cleanup
and the lakewide management planning process hold
some promise, as do basinwide strategies for issue-
specific management—such as the work of the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission. The Great Lakes ap-
proach is a function of scale (i.e., the expansiveness of
the resource) as much as anything else, but the notion
24

-------
of comprehensive basinwide planning should be
revisited. I like the "Action Plan" approach of the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and particular-
ly its specificity in responsibilities and funding
requirements. There's nothing quite like it in the
Great Lakes, and there should be.
2.	Public Participation/Constituency Building: There
is also a lesson to be learned in public participation
and constituency building. Historically, we have not
done a good job with this. In the Chesapeake Bay,
citizen participation—such as through the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation Citizen's Advisory Com-
mittee and other avenues—was instrumental in
generating the sustained interest and support for a
Bay program. The Puget Sound plan also recognizes
the citizenry as a partner in the process. In the Great
Lakes our management institutions have historically
been designed more toward tolerating citizen input
rather than embracing and nourishing it.
3.	Translating Plans to Action (Accountability):
Every region faces challenges in translating plans to ac-
tion because multi-jurisdictional agencies tend to have
only recommendatory and advisory powers. In the
Great Lakes, recommendations of the International
Joint Commission are presented to the State Depart-
ment in the U.S. and External Affairs in Canada. But
there is no requirement for action or even acknow-
ledgement. And while there is no formal federal-state
accord that specifies rules under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement, the system in place works
surprisingly well.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan
and implementation documents for the Chesapeake
are examples where objectives are clearly stated and
roles, responsibilities, and timelines for implementa-
tion are well-defined. This can be an effective way of
ensuring accountability.
4.	Organizing Public/Private Interests—Vertical
Horizontal Integration: The success or failure of
regional planning initiatives is dependent not only
upon substance, but on marketing and public rela-
tions. Constituency building plays a pivotal role in
this area. All three regions have learned, or are begin-
ning to learn, this lesson well. The approaches are
distinct, but need to be tailored to each region. We
have done a good job with vertical integration—from
the local to the federal arena—and horizontally,
among entities at the same level of governance or of a
similar private sector role. The next challenge will be
providing this model with a third dimension that
promotes the cross-fertilization of ideas and promotes
interaction between and among all components.
5.	New Federalism and Growing State and Federal
Roles: Since 1980 the Great Lakes region has been a
classic case study in how to do more with less. Its bina-
tional character and tradition of extensive federal
involvement made the adjustment to "new federalism"
difficult, if not traumatic. And, as the domino effect
has taken place, we have seen our states and localities
shoulder a greater management burden. Due to the
size of the resource, it is unlikely that we will be able
to establish a public outreach program and staffing ar-
rangement in the manner of the Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority. Unquestionably, however, our
partnership approach to Basin management will see
an expedited state and, in particular, local role.
6.	Creative Financing: Creative financing is a matter
of survival for regional efforts. In the Great Lakes we
see significant foundation support to augment public
funds. The Great Lakes Protection Fund, as will be
discussed, is a means to leverage additional research
dollars. Puget Sound funding is diversified and in-
cludes the state general fund, state toxics fund, local
funding, federal funding, and a cigarette tax capitaliz-
ing the Centennial Clean Water Fund.
7.	Policy/Research Community Interface; At a con-
ference I recently attended, a scientist alluded to the
"Berlin Wall" that separated the various scientific dis-
ciplines. He noted that this wall starting to crumble as
interdisciplinary research gains a foothold. To con-
tinue this analogy, I would liken the interface between
25

-------
Legislative action must be cultivated in between crises as well as
during them.
the policy and research communities as something of
an "iron curtain." It may have some cracks and dents
in it, but it's still there. Regional organizations—as
brokers—have taken a leadership role in reconciling
policy needs with research priorities. All three regions
have technical advisory committees that are playing im-
portant roles in this regard.
Key Players:
Success stories in regional governance can seldom be
attributed to a single individual or organization. A col-
lective, collegial approach is imperative. In the Great
Lakes region, coalition building among regional inter-
ests (governmental, private, citizen based, academic) is
the necessary ingredient. For legislative and policy suc-
cess, regional organizations must nurture relationships
within each and every jurisdiction, particularly legisla-
tures, key agencies, and governors. This is the "secret"
to the success of the Great Lakes Commission.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that other states pay close attention
to a series of "legislative challenges for the 1990s." To
advance resource management efforts in any jurisdic-
tion:
•	Legislative action must be cultivated in between
crises as well as during them.
•	In the decision-making process, political and
hydrologic boundaries must be reconciled.
•	A careful balance between preventive maintenance
and remedial action must be struck when limited
funds for environmental management are allo-
cated.
•	Some degree of institutional continuity at the
Basin (i.e., multi-jurisdictional) level must be main-
tained.
•	Creative financing must be pursued at all levels
and in all forms.
•	Efforts must be made to ensure that resource users
and managers are accountable for their actions.
For more information, contact:
Michael Donahue
(see above)
Presenter:
Bonnie Koenig, Executive Director
Council of Great Lakes Governors
10th Floor, 310 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 427-0092
Focus of effort:
Great Lakes Charter (approved 1985), individual state
legislation followed.
Great Lakes Protection Fund (approved 1989), in-
dividual state legislation followed.
Successes:
Protection Fund: Six of eight states approved legisla-
tion in 1989. There's been more of a carrot than a stick
approach with three years to pay up after signing. Our
first goal was four out of eight states. The timetable is
moving for the other two states to get their legislation
through.
•	Foundation-funded poll conducted; lots of support
•	Fund responded to clear need
•	Fund had gubanatorial leadership
•	Fund had bipartisan support
•	Needed timetables to move the process along
•	Flexibility important
26

-------
The fund will focus on providing money for research,
demonstration projects, etc. Coordination will con-
tinue through existing dialogue in the region.
The original feasibility study recommended a water
user fee as a method of funding. However, the gover-
nors wanted more flexibility. Most states used general
operating funds. Michigan issued a bond. New York
has a water user fee.
Problems/Challenges:
With multi-state goals, each state legislature is often
on a unique calendar with a unique set of concerns,
and a regional program is often a challenge to coor-
dinate.
Key Players:
Governors, legislators, non-governmental groups.
Recommendations to other states:
Bipartisan support helpful. Active participation by
key leaders (such as governors) helpful.
For more information, contact:
Bonnie Koenig
(see above)
Presenter:
John Jackson, President
Great Lakes United
139 Waterloo St.
Kitchner, Ontario, N2H 3V5 Canada
(519) 744-7503
Focus of effort:
Role of citizen activists in the Great Lakes.
27

-------
Puget Sound
Presenter:
Washington State Senator Mike Kriedler
425 John A Cherberg Bldg., QWA-41
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 786-7642
Focus of effort:
Washington's 1985 legislation creating the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority and the 1986 tax upon
tobacco products to fund water quality projects both il-
lustrate the maxim that "politics is the art of the
possible." Both of these legislative measures were
preceded by widespread public support for protecting
Puget Sound, but widely divergent views on the means
to achieve this end. The product was a very significant
experiment in designing an institution to fit the scope
of an environmental quality issue, rather than the more
common strategy of forcing a new program within an
existing state or local government agency.
This experiment is drawing close to the end of its first
phase, dominated by building relationships with exist-
ing institutions and, through comprehensive planning,
laying the groundwork for making fundamental chan-
ges in governmental programs to place a high emphasis
upon protecting the long-term quality and productivity
of Puget Sound. The next phase of this significant ex-
periment is the implementation of these plans, perhaps
a much more severe test. In the meantime, the legisla-
ture and the governor will again debate the overall
strategy of this effort, since the current Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority by law terminates in 1991.
Whatever the outcome of this debate, however, there
appears to be uniform support for continuing to imple-
ment the Authority's plan for protection of Puget
Sound. Since the creation of the Authority, other is-
sues have emerged as regional issues in the Puget
Sound basin, and illustrate that regional strategies
which "cross-cut" existing governmental institutions
and programs will be necessary to grapple with the
challenges of one of the fastest-growing metropolitan
regions in the country.
Presenter:
Carol Jolly, Assistant Director
Washington State Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA
(206) 438-7090
Focus of effort:
What Ecology was doing for Puget Sound pre-PSWQA:
In May 1984 a proposed initiative for a federal/state
water pollution abatement and prevention plan for
Puget Sound was prepared by the Department of Ecol-
ogy and the Environmental Protection Agency. The
purpose of the initiative was to address current and
emerging water quality problems in Puget Sound.
This initiative came about after NOAA's work in the
late 1970s and early 1980s that found tumors in bottom
fish in Puget Sound related especially to areas with con-
taminated sediments. There was a lot of political and
public response to NOAA's report. EPA and Ecology
wanted to take a more proactive role in Puget Sound.
The 1984 initiative focused on the development and im-
plementation of specific action plans for priority
problem areas, an improved set of long-term manage-
ment policies, and a supportive, well-informed and
involved public constituency. The three-year (FY85,
FY86, and FY87), $12 million (proposed costs) plan
focused on:
• Urban area toxics contamination, especially in the
urban bays near Tacoma, Seattle, Everett,
Winslow, Bremerton, and Bellingham (projected
costs $3.4 million).
28

-------
Winslow, Bremerton, and Bellingham (projected
costs $3.4 million).
•	Cumulative effects of human activities and the un-
certainties about the long-term health of life in
Puget Sound (projected costs S4.95 million).
•	Bacterial contamination of shellfish resulting in
local and state health department closures of
many recreational and commercial shellfish beds
(projected costs Si.2 million).
•	Management support and public involvement
(projected costs $2.2 million).
In 1985 the Washington State Legislature created the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority to develop a
comprehensive water quality plan for Puget Sound.
The efforts of EPA, Ecology, and the Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority led to the establishment of
the Puget Sound Estuary Program. The three agencies
were designated as co-managers of PSEP. A policy
oversight committee and a multi-agency technical ad-
visory committee were established.
EPA funding for the initiative and the Estuary Pro-
gram has totaled about $8.2 million.
In March 1988 the Administrator of the EPA formally
designated Puget Sound as an estuary of national sig-
nificance.
Effects of Puget Sound plan on existing activities:
Urban bay action teams:
The plan provided additional resources to help expand
pre-plan action teams—Elliott Bay, Commencement
Bay, and Everett Harbor—to other bays. Focus has
been and continues to be:
•	Source controls using tools from several programs.
•	Investigating storm drains for sources.
•	Improving awareness of problems among industry
and local jurisdictions through committees and in-
vestigations.
Contaminated sediments:
Some work preceded the Puget Sound plan on
decision-making processes for managing sediments.
The Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis was
studying sites for unconfined disposal. The plan built
on this work by calling for development of confined
disposal sites and sediment quality standards for
cleanup decisions.
Increased stringency for dischargers is expected as a
result of the sediment standards. Public awareness has
increased via public workshops.
Municipal and industrial discharges:
The plan resulted in more resources for permit writ-
ing, inspections, and providing guidance/training to
permit writers and inspectors.
The plan calls for more stringent permits (toxics con-
trol, unannounced inspections). It also focused more
attention on biological effects (biomonitoring).
The permit review process is increasing public aware-
ness.
Combined sewer overflow (CSO) reduction planning
and regulation:
The Washington State Legislature passed a law in
1985 that called for combined sewer overflow (CSO)
reduction planning and regulation. The 1987 plan ac-
knowledged Ecology's rule requiring CSO reduction
plans which was developed as a result of the legisla-
tion.
29

-------
Spill prevention and response:
The plan simply required Ecology to implement
preexisting recommendations in the 1986 Oil Spill Ad-
visory Committee Report to the Legislature and the
1987 Ecology Spill Management Policy Recommenda-
tions (including a major revision to the state
Contingency Plan).
Laboratory support program:
The plan's main focus is to improve the quality of lab
data within Ecology (developing a more comprehen-
sive quality assurance plan) and among commercial
labs (developed a lab certification program).
New programs resulting from the plan:
Stormwater program and nonpoint watershed plans:
The stormwater program calls for local government to
develop programs addressing stormwater quality. The
nonpoint source pollution program calls for local com-
mittees to develop action plans addressing nonpoint
pollution in local watersheds. Ecology is providing
guidance and technical support for, and oversight of,
local programs. A major focus of the effort is the
prevention of pollution. The action plans will result
in more stringent best management practices. Public
awareness was built into Ecology guidance efforts.
Wetlands:
The plan calls for protection of the Sound's wetlands
through 1) local programs based on state standards,
and 2) efforts to preserve priority wetlands through ac-
quisition. Ecology's focus is on guidance and
technical support for, and oversight of, local wetlands
programs. Ecology is also working with the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources on a Soundwide
preservation program. Public awareness was built into
Ecology's guidance efforts.
Other activities:
j Ecology is responsible for the following activities:
•	Federal Clean Water Act (304(L) and 319)
•	Toxics (Model Toxics Control Act, Initiative 97)
•	Centennial Clean Water Fund
Ecology growth since the plan:
1.	Number of staff to directly support the plan - SO
(Technical - 67; clerical, supervisors, support -13)
2.	Budget for Ecology for the plan:
FY87-FY89 $8 million
FY89-FY91 $11 million
Ecology needs a period of settling in. Staff need to be
trained in order to become productive. Programs
which are underdeveloped need to be put into place
and implemented, with later follow-up to determine
where they are successful and where more effort is
needed.
Presenter:
James Abernathy, Executive Secretary
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
217 Pine Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 464-7320
Focus of effort:
RCW 90.70 was passed by the Washington State Legis-
lature in 1985. It created a new state agency, the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, to develop and
oversee the implementation of a comprehensive
management plan for water quality in Puget Sound
and the surrounding watershed. The Authority is
governed by a seven-person board appointed by the
30

-------
The burst of interest in Puget Sound in the mid-1980s left a
legacy of heightened awareness.
governor and confirmed by the Senate. Six of the
members represent geographic areas and have four-
year terms, while the seventh is at-large, serves as the
chair and head of the staff, and serves at the pleasure
of the governor.
The impetus for this was a growing awareness of
problems caused by toxic and bacteriological pol-
lutants and the disappearance of wetlands and other
habitat. The decision to create a new agency was
driven by the proliferation of federal, state, local, and
tribal government agencies and special districts, which
held only partial responsibility for protecting the
Sound. No one had an oversight role.
The statute listed 20 elements required for inclusion
in the plan. The Authority sought advice from the
public as to whether any additional issues should be in-
cluded and then developed and published nine issue
papers in early 1986. Those issue papers and the
public comment on them formed the basis of a draft
plan with 13 programs published that summer.
After public hearings, several important refinements
were made in the draft and it was adopted in Decem-
ber 1986. The statute requires a review every two
years, so the plan was revised and the 1989 Puget
Sound Water Quality Management Plan was adopted
in October 1989.
Authority staff have spent most of their time since the
adoption of the first plan working with state and local
government implementing agencies to see that the
plan is carried out as the statute mandates. The staff
also engages in an extensive program of outreach to
the public, with some special emphasis on local
government, including contracting with groups
through the Public Involvement and Education Fund.
The Authority also comments on the proposed actions
of other agencies which might have an impact on the
Sound.
The Authority is now publishing three additional issue
papers in preparation for the development of the 1991
plan. This plan will be officially accepted by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency as a management plan
under the National Estuary Program and will thus
more directly involve federal agencies in plan im-
plementation.
RCW 80.70 requires that the Authority cease to exist
on June 30,1991. In the 1990 session, the Legislature
will be considering whether to continue the Authority,
merge the functions into another agency, or terminate
the effort.
The development and partial implementation of the
plan along with public outreach efforts have made sig-
nificant improvements in the approaches individuals
and institutions take in dealing with problems affect-
ing the Sound. It is too early to measure the effects of
the plan on the water, sediments, and biota of the
Sound and its tributaries.
Problems/Challenges:
One major problem has been the lack of sufficient
funds for state agencies and local governments to im-
plement the plan. This is partly because there is no
overall budget appropriated for plan implementation
but rather amounts in the budgets of many different
entities.
The other has been the difficulties arising from the
relationships between the Authority and the state and
local government agencies responsible for implement-
ing the plan. The unique structure in which one state
agency can mandate action by another state agency is
the major contributor to these difficulties.
Presenter:
Eric Piyne, Reporter
The Seattle Times
P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111
(206) 464-3138
31

-------
Focus of effort:
Media and Puget Sound.
The Seattle Times covered Puget Sound water quality
issues in a scattershot, unsynthesized manner prior to
mid-1984. It reported on individual government ac-
tions—creation of the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, designation of Superfund sites at Com-
mencement Bay and Harbor Island—and troubling
symptoms, such as fecal contamination of commercial
shellfish beds, but didn't think to look beyond the
"trees" to the "forest," to examine the relationships
between these individual issues and events.
The first such effort was "The Imperiled Sound," a
three part series published in June 1984. Part 1
provided an overview, addressing how little was known
about the Sound and how recently scientists, govern-
ment officials, environmentalists, and others had
begun to examine it in a comprehensive fashion. Part
2 focused on the Carkeek watershed in northwest Seat-
tle to illustrate how individual actions could affect the
Sound, and how community action could help
preserve or restore its health. Part 3 looked at the
maze of government agencies with jurisdiction over
the Sound.
Response to the series was strong. Puget Sound pollu-
tion emerged as a major issue in 1984 political
campaigns. Other factors, including designation of a
Superfund site in suburban Eagle Harbor and the
deaths of two gray whales in the Sound, also con-
tributed to the rise in public attention and concern.
During the following year, the Times allowed me to
spend almost full time writing about Puget Sound
water quality issues. In addition to daily develop-
ments, I also wrote "enterprise" pieces, stories not
tied to some recent event, that provided background
into particular aspects of Puget Sound pollution, such
as dredge spoil disposal and combined sewer overflows.
There are several possible explanations for why the
Seattle Times chose to focus so much attention on
Puget Sound. First, Puget Sound is an integral part of
the Northwest lifestyle, of great interest to the Times'
readers. Second, other long-running environmental
stories—the Northern Tier Pipeline dispute, the
Washington Wilderness bill—were coming to a close.
Finally, as an afternoon paper whose publication
schedule often puts it at a disadvantage in covering
"breaking news," the Times gives special attention to
"enterprise" reporting, looking beyond the day's
events, trying to provide some context, to anticipate
what might or should come next.
I left the Puget Sound beat in mid-1985 to take a posi-
tion with the Times' bureau in Washington, DC,
returning to Seattle in 1988. During that three-year
period, public and press attention on Puget Sound
dropped several notches. Other stories, such as
problems at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation,
emerged and demanded attention. Perhaps intensity
waned when it became apparent that cleanup and
protection of Puget Sound were programs that would
require decades to carry out, that adrenalin wasn't
enough to do the job.
But the media and the people of Western Washington
haven't turned their backs on Puget Sound. The burst
of interest in the mid-1980s left a legacy of heightened
awareness.
Presenter:
Mayor Tim Douglas
City of Bellingham
210 Lottie Street
Bellingham, WA 98225
(206) 676-6979
32

-------
"Other" Programs
Presenter:
New York Senator Owen H. Johnson
23-24 Argyle Square
Babylon, NY 11702
(516)669-9200
Focus of effort:
Sewage treatment, interstate cooperation.
Successes:
1.	Funding sewage treatment initiatives.
2.	Creation of interstate committees.
Problems/Challenges:
Lack of cooperation from large municipalities, e.g.
New York City.
Key IMayers:
Legislators, Governor, NYC representatives.
For more information, contact:
Jennifer Epp, Research Director
Senate Subcommittee on the Long Island Marine
District
270 Broadway, Room 1001
New York, NY 10007
Presenter:
Connecticut State Senator John Atkin
197 James Street
Norwalk, CT 06850
(203) 240-0488
Focus of effort:
Creation of bistate Long Island Commission through
statute in Connecticut and New York.
Establishment of bistate caucus of senators from New
York and Connecticut.
Regional advisory councils
Successes:
1.	Passage of bistate Long Island Commission.
2.	Creation of Long Island Sound Cleanup Fund with
initial $25 million in deficit year.
3.	Creation of Long Island Sound regional advisory
council.
Problems/Challenges:
1.	Developing language both states could agree on.
2.	Agreeing to first joint meeting.
3.	Attaining monies in deficit year.
Key Players:
Sen. Steve Spellman, Environmental Committee
Sen. John Larson, President Pro-tem
Sen. George Gunther, Ranking member, Environmen-
tal Committee
Recommendations to other states:
More detail as to mission, role, responsibility in
statutory language.
For more information, contact:
Mr. Art Roque, Coastal Management
State Department of Environmental Protection
Hartford, CT 06106
Presenter:
Caroline Karp, Project Director
Narragansett Bay Project
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908-5767
(401) 277-3165
33

-------
Draft legislation carefully, with an eye toward implementation.
Focus of effort:
Two pieces of legislation were recently passed by the
Rhode Island General Assembly—the "Rhode Island
AquaFund," 1988 (R.I.G.L. 42-106-1 et. seq.), and the
"Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Act," 1988
(R.I.G.L. 45-22.2-6). The AquaFund bill provides
financing for research, planning, and focused remedial
actions to "solve" identified problems in Narragansett
Bay. The Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Act
was drafted by a statewide task force chaired by Repre-
sentative Robert Weygand. The Act requires all
Rhode Island cities and towns to draft comprehensive
local land use plans that satisfy minimum state stand-
ards using a common geographic database.
Successes:
The AquaFund bill capitalizes on the overwhelming
popular support for Narragansett Bay-related protec-
tion measures. As a result, the bill passed with little or
no opposition and is fully funded for $15 million for
five categories of projects: Planning and program im-
plementation; Pilot project development; Wastewater
treatment; Pretreatment; Urban runoff abatement.
The Land Use Planning bill represents a major achieve-
ment. Similar measures have been proposed and
defeated since the 1920s. The bill's success is largely at-
tributable to the work of the Task Force, which had
representatives from cities and towns, the development
community, state and local planners, and environmen-
tal organizations. The Act is being successfully
implemented, including development of a statewide
geographic information system and development of
local land use plans.
Rhode Island has involved industry in water quality
protection. A massive bond issue was passed to fund
grants and loans to industry to pay for pretreatment
equipment for jewelry and electroplaters, etc. Rhode
Island also formed a hazardous waste reduction effort
to reduce wastes—recommendations for how to change
manufacturing processes to reduce wastes. Also funds
employee initiatives to reduce wastes (based on 3M
model).
Problems/Challenges:
The AquaFund bill is poorly drafted, which has led to
several problems with implementation, i.e., disburse-
ment of funds. For example, the bill contains
contradictory directives, such as declaring one purpose
of the Act to be the control of nonpoint source pollu-
tion (R.I.G.L. 42-106-1), while only appropriating
funds for the control of urban runoff (R.I.G.L. 42-106-
4). Other problems include the Council's (and the R.I.
Department of Environmental Management's) delay in
developing operating procedures such as establishment
of priorities for funding; establishment of procedural
rules regarding issuance of RFPs and/or submission
and review of proposals; and the failure to establish ad-
ministrative rules of procedure, including attendance
requirements, frequency of meetings, and conflict of in-
terest rules.
There are two major problems with the Planning and
Land Use Act. The first concerns the level of funding
made available to the Statewide Planning Program for
administering and reviewing local land use plans, and
the level of technical and financial assistance made
available to cities and towns. The funding issue is like-
ly to cause delays in actual completion and adoption of
the individual plans. The second problem concerns the
level of guidance provided by the state. For example,
in the area of "natural/cultural resources"—one of
nine elements required to be addressed in the local
plans—the State Guide Plan incorporates state law by
reference but does not recommend or suggest ap-
propriate land management practices for nonpoint
source pollution control, aquifer protection, etc. As a
result, local land use plans will largely reflect local in-
itiative and ability to develop this information
independently, which may result in inconsistent land
use policies and practices between jurisdictions. A re-
lated problem concerns the lack of a formal
mechanism to conform policies and practices across
political boundaries. This may potentially cause
34

-------
It is essential to do a comprehensive, inter-jurisdictional
planning effort that will withstand the inevitable legal challenges.
potentially cause problems in terms of protecting
shared drinking water supplies, for example.
Key Players:
AquaFund: ex-Lieutenant Governor Roger Befin; Mr.
John Hamilton (Chair); Mr. Robert L. Bendick (Direc-
tor, RIDEM) and RIDEM staff; AquaFund Council.
Planning and Land Use: Representative Robert
Weygand (Chair of the Task Force, sponsor of the
legislation); Mr. Dan Varin (Director, Division of
Statewide Planning); members of the task force; cities
and towns.
Recommendations to other states:
1.	Draft the legislation carefully, with an eye toward
implementation, i.e., pay attention to definitions, in-
ternal consistency, appropriate level of funding.
2.	Specify qualifications for board members in the
legislation if an advisory board or council is required
to oversee implementation.
3.	Actively seek broad participation from interested
segments of the public ("user groups" and prac-
titioner/experts) in drafting legislation, especially if
the legislation will have stateside significance.
4.	Mandate companion public education and technical
assistance programs where the success of the program
depends on the affected parties sharing a common lan-
guage or approach.
For more information, contact:
John Hamilton, Chair
State House, Room 145
Providence, RI 02908
(401) 277-2371
Robert Bendick, Director
R.I. Department of Environmental Management
9 Hayes Street
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 277-2772
Representative Robert Weygand
106 Greenwich Ave.
E. Providence, RI 02914
Dan Varin, Director
Division of Stateside Planning
265 Melrose Street
Providence, RI 02907
(401) 277-2656
Presenter:
Albert Aramburu, Marin County (CA) Supervisor and
Commissioner on the San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
Marin County Civic Center, RM 315
San Rafael, CA 94903
(415) 499-7331
Focus of effort:
Cleanup of Richardson Bay (part of San Francisco
Bay).
Removal of debris and illegal residential use on the
Bay under the provisions of the McAteer-Petriss Act
(CA legislature).
Successes:
1.	Implementation of the Richardson Bay Special
Area Plan.
2.	Formation of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency.
3.	Designation of Richardson Bay as a "No-discharge"
area.
4.	Dropping the Federal Anchorage designation from
Richardson Bay.
5.	Adopting the ordinance regulating residential use
of Richardson Bay Beginning the Bay cleanup.
35

-------
Problems/Challenges:
The two biggest problems faced by the plan im-
plemented were: 1) continual legal challenges that
were eventually won by local and state governments;
2) the disruptive behavior of some of the boaters.
Key Players:
The County of Marin (supervisor A1 Aramburu), the
cities of Sausalito, Mill Valley, Tiburon, and Bel-
vedere, and the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission.
Recommendations to other states:
It is essential to do a comprehensive, inter-jurisdiction-
al planning effort that will withstand the inevitable
legal challenges. It is also important to have the ap-
propriate enabling legislation.
For more information, contact:
Supervisor A1 Aramburu
(see above)
36

-------
Land Use and Growth
Management
Presenter:
Dr. Sarah J. Taylor, Executive Director
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission
275 West Street, Suite 320
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 974-2418
Focus of effort:
Natural Resources Article 8-1801 through 1816. Es-
tablished a coastal protection program for the Critical
Area (1,000 feet landward around Maryland's tidal
waters, the waters themselves, and the land under the
water) involving state and local governments and
broad-based interests to: 1) develop guidelines for the
protection program, 2) administer the program locally
with oversight from a state commission and 3) address
three goals throughout the whole process of minimiz-
ing the impact to water quality; conserving fish,
wildlife, and plant habitats; and accommodating
growth.
Successes:
1.	Definite time frames established for each step to be
taken and hearing process.
2.	Joint legislative oversight committee.
3.	Specific items to be covered in the program.
4.	Funding.
5.	Enforcement and oversight.
6.	State agency impact.
7.	Composition of the commission and role.
Problems/Challenges:
1. Problems with implementation included: Enforce-
ment, funding, "taking" issue (compensation),
maintaining public interest, geographic coverage.
2. Challenges to passage included: Diverse opinions
and influence of groups, legislative familiarity with
land use was nonexistent, enforcement and oversight,
state agency impact, composition of the commission.
Key Players:
Governor, environmental community, public. Schisms
with developers and realtors, farmers and foresters.
Recommendations to other states:
1.	Try for a watershed approach.
2.	Be specific with what you want.
3.	Have a prolonged "due process."
4.	Set up reasonable time frames.
5.	Provide funding..
6.	Insist that local ordinances, codes, and regulations
all be changed so that new program sets a precedent.
For more information, contact:
Dr. Sarah J. Taylor
(see above)
Presenter:
Armando J. Carbonell, Executive Director
Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission
First District Court House
Barnstable, MA 02630
(508) 362-2511, x470
Focus of effort:
State legislation to create a new regional land use
regulatory system for Cape Cod, Massachusetts, has
passed the Massachusetts House of Representatives
and is pending in the Senate as of November 21. The
37

-------
Cape Cod Commission Act (CCCA), which provides
authority to regulate developments of regional impact
and designated districts of critical planning concern,
will directly benefit coastal resource protection.
Successes:
Based on an earlier regional planning initiative in 1986
called Prospect: Cape Cod, CCCA has received broad
support both on Cape Cod, winning 76 percent ap-
proval on a non-binding ballot question in 1988, and
statewide. The bill passed the House 145-2 on Novem-
ber 1,1989.
Problems/Challenges:
Challenges: It hasn't passed the Senate yet! The legisla-
tion faces strong opposition from statewide
development interests concerned about the precedent
that it would be set.
Key Players:
Citizens, environmental organizations, media, local of-
ficials, bankers, builders, statewide political leaders.
Recommendations to other states:
Work with local officials and citizens to develop a con-
sensus on desired results. Negotiate and accommodate
whenever possible to build support for specific legisla-
tion.
For more information, contact:
Armando J. Carbonell
(see above)
Presenter:
Robert E, Stacy, Jr., Acting Planning Director,
City of Portland Bureau of Planning
1120 SW 5 th Avenue, Room 1002
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 796-7701
Focus of effort:
Adoption and implementation of the Estuarine
Resources Goal (Statewide Planning Goal 16) by the
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commis-
sion (LCDC) pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS) Chapter 197.
Successes:
Adoption of state standards in 1977 requiring classifica-
tion of estuaries and management units within
estuaries. Implementation of those standards in locally
adopted and state-approved comprehensive plans for
all 19 Oregon estuaries, which regulate fills, dredging,
and uses of water area and shorelands.
Problems/Challenges:
Varying levels of success in resource protection; lack of
full coordination among local, state, and federal per-
mitting agencies in development review process.
Key Players:
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development; Oregon Division of State Lands; port
districts, coastal cities and counties.
Recommendations to other states:
Adopt statewide planning legislation with mandatory
standards and state compliance review.
For more information, contact:
Susan Brody, Director
Department of Land Conservation and Development
1175 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97310
Presenter:
Steve McAdam, Executive Director for Governmental
Affairs
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission
38

-------
Combine the findings and policies on each issue into one
management plan for which consensus previously could not
have been reached.
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 557-3686
Focus of effort:
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission: A Case Study in State Coastal
Land Use Management.
Successes:
Program Inception:
•	Save the Bay movement
•	Creation of "Study Commission"
•	Creation of Temporary Commission
The Temporary Commission:
•	Preparation of the San Francisco Bay Plan
•	Interim permit authority
•	Major policies of the Bay Plan:
Limitations on Bay fill
Designation of priority waste use areas
Emphasis on public access to the shoreline
Protection for salt ponds and managed wetlands
The Permanent Commission:
•	Passage of the McAteer-Petriss Act (Government
Code Section 66600 et seq.)
Commission membership specified (Section
66620)
Commission jurisdiction set (Section 66610)
Specific limitations on Bay fill (Section 66605)
Requirements for permits (Section 66632)
Problems/Challenges:
•	Enforcement powers omitted
•	Compromises to obtain passage
Recommendations to other states:
1.	Study the resource at risk by separating the manage-
ment problems, informing the decision makers on
each issue, and developing—by consensus findings and
policies—the remedy to individual issues.
2.	Combine the findings and policies on each issue
into one management plan for which consensus pre-
viously could not have been reached.
3.	Implement the management plan by relying on a
state or regional regulatory program with strong enfor-
cement powers, but which has a local government
presence.
4.	Create additional funding programs to acquire land
and make public improvements to implement portions
of the program that could not be achieved through
regulation.
5.	Provide a role for the state/regional management
authority in all other land and water use decisions that
can affect the resource at risk.
6.	Act incrementally.
For more information, contact:
Alan Pendleton, Executive Director
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Peter Douglas, Executive Director
California Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street, 4th Floor,
San Francisco, CA 94105
39

-------
Peter Grenell, Executive Officer
California State Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612-2530
Amy Zimpfer, Director
San Francisco Estuary Project
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94604-2050
Barry Nelson, Executive Director
Save San Francisco Bay Association
P.O. Box 925
Berkeley, CA 94701
40

-------
Stormwater
Management
Presenter:
Pam Bissonnette, Assistant City Manager
Office of the City Manager
11511 Main Street
P.O. Box 90012
Bellevue, WA 98009-9013
(206) 455-6810
Focus of effort:
Successful stormwater management through a
stormwater utility: a case study of Bellevue's Storm
and Surface Water (SSW) Utility.
Successes:
The Bellevue SSW Utility was supported by state legis-
lation in the mid-1960s allowing drainage control to
be included in utility statutes. Bellevue's SSW Utility
was then created by city ordinance in 1974 amid con-
siderable controversy, but we survived it. In 1979, by
city ordinance, a Comprehensive Master Drainage
Plan was adopted. In 1980 it was a successful ballot
before the public, which allowed financing for major
capital improvements. After a five-year effort during
the mid-1980s, the Natural Determinant Policies of
the Citywide Comprehensive Plan were amended to
protect wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and
floodplains. Today, we are progressing toward obtain-
ing a stormwater permit as a result of EPA's
promulgation of discharge permits for stormwater.
Program components:
•	Administration (rate collecting)
•	Utility commission (watchdog group—handles
citizen complaints)
•	Monitoring of water quality in streams
•	Extensive O&M program
•	Capital improvement programs
•	Public education (stream teams, recycling, help
prevent pollution at the sources)
Problems/Challenges:
We have been working on a stormwater permit since
1981 and have not received one. The state legislation
proposed last year and potentially again in this next
legislative session may take away the great progress we
have made in wetlands protection. We have asked for
two years now that any state standard for local wet-
lands programs be a minimum, thus allowing
jurisdictions such as Bellevue to adopt a more strin-
gent standard. Those of us who already have drainage
utilities have good reason to do so since our
ratepayers (i.e., voters) pay for the adverse consequen-
ces of inappropriate development of wetlands. We
treat wetlands as the state does shorelines, i.e., only
development appropriate to wetlands, which preserves
their function, is allowed to take place in wetlands. All
we ask is that we be able to continue doing so.
Key Players:
State providing enabling legislation; EPA and Depart-
ment of Ecology in development and enforcement of a
stormwater permit program; City Council providing
leadership to establish and fund a stormwater utility;
public support is crucial in making any of this happen.
Recommendations to other states:
1. States must provide enabling legislation for local
governments to establish stormwater utilities. State
should provide minimum standards for dealing with
water quality control, flood control, and wetland
protection, and then allow each local utility to balance
ratepayer costs against more stringent development
standards. This is particularly important since each
geographic area can vary and may require different
41

-------
Set initial rates as low as possible. This allows people to get used
to paying a bill
standards (e.g., eastern and western Washington and
Oregon). Each population of ratepayers and their de-
gree of public support for such programs is different as
well.
2.	Create an institutional/financial network for a
drainage utility. A stable revenue base is essential to
implementation. Utility rates are needed to handle
stormwater.
3.	Set initial rates as low as possible. This allows
people to get used to paying a bill. The city subsidized
the utility for some years. If rates are initially set too
high, the program won't fly.
4.	Establish flood control and water quality missions
from the outset. Institute a stream monitoring pro-
gram at the start to prevent the further piping of
streams.
5.	Problems differ for different areas, so solutions need
to be locally based.
6.	Some development should just not occur, for ex-
ample, wetlands, stream corridors, steep slopes, and
floodplains. Our five-year effort to amend zoning
focused on these areas.
7.	Our utility rate was based on an Equivalent Residen-
tial Unit (ERU) runoff base rate for all single families.
Increases based on multiples of that base rate are
easier to set up and to bill (although may not be fair).
For more information, contact:
Pam Bissonnette, Deputy City Manager, 455-6810
Damon Diessner, Storm and Surface Water Utility
Director, 451-4476
Carl Swanson, Storm and Surface Water Utility
Assistant Director, 451-4476
Presenter:
Roxanne R. Dow, Chief of Bureau of Surface Water
Management
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blairstone Rd., Suite 649
Tallahassee, FL 32299-2400
(904) 488-6221
Focus of effort:
Stormwater management in Florida: Statutes 403 and
373 (regulatory) and 187 (State Comprehensive Plan);
Administrative Rules 17-25 and 17-43. Policy of
delegation of regulatory programs to regional water
management districts and connection to regional water
shed plans (surface water improvement and
management plans) and local comprehensive plans.
Successes:
1.	Updated to establish state, regional, and local
responsibilities in 1989.
2.	$15 million/year for three years for regional water-
shed plans (SWIM).
3.	$2 million demonstration grant allocation for urban
areas with utilities.
4.	Level of service requirement in local comprehensive
plans.
Problems/Challenges:
Technological problems in redesigning existing urban
watersheds. Operation and maintenance habits need
to be established. Agricultural tie-in unclear.
Florida water quality standards are not being met ex-
cept for particulates.
42

-------
Take care of stormwater quality; don't just take care of the
streets.
Key Players:
Local government leaders, both elected and ad-
ministrative, regional water management districts,
consulting firms with utilities experience.
Recommendations to other states:
1.	Tie stormwater management to local land use and
water quality (flood control) activities. Provide means
for revenue for operation and maintenance as well as
construction (impact fees, utility, on-site treatment
prior to connection to regional system, etc).
Demonstrate success with demonstration projects.
2.	Transportation systems don't adequately consider
surface water effects—street and road runoff, treat-
ment, transport. Urban retrofit is very expensive.
Watershed planning effort similar to 208 plans.
3.	Keep one focus. Take care of stormwater quality;
don't just take care of the streets. Treat it like they do
for water supply and sewage treatment. Drainage
utility concentrates resources for stormwater. Goal
not to keep streets dry. Very concerned with water
quality. Work with fire department and street depart-
ment. Don't "flush streets" anymore. Don't ditch
anymore.
For more information, contact:
Eric Livingston, Bart Bibler, Roxane Dow
(see above)
Presenter:
Earl Shaver, Environmental Engineer
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736-5731
Focus of effort:
Stormwater management experiences in Delaware,
Maryland, and Aukland, New Zealand.
Common problems and approaches.
Best management practices—which work and which
don't.
Successes:
Public education and awareness to indicate the prob-
lem need.
Problems/Challenges:
Financial resources, holistic approach.
Key Players:
EPA, state and local governments, conservation dis-
tricts, public support.
Recommendations to other states:
Nonpoint pollution control is not a simple, easily ad-
dressed program. We are each the cause and solution.
The organizational infighting will be considerable.
In order to get agencies to work together, you must tie
up loose ends before it's too late, coordinate, and use
regional authorities to cross boundaries.
For more information, contact:
Earl Shaver
(see above)
43

-------
Creative Funding
Approaches
Presenter:
Joseph R. Williams, Program Manager
Water Quality Financial Assistance Programs
Washington State Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 459-6101
Focus of effort:
Centennial Clean Water Act, RCW 70-146
Water Pollution Control Facilities Financing.
Successes:
Provides $45 million each year to local governments
for water pollution control facilities and activities—
marine water, groundwater, lakes, nonpoint,
discretionary categories.
Problems/Challenges:
1.	Complex funding categories.
2.	Administrative lid (3 percent) not enough to ad-
minister program.
Key Players:
Department of Ecology, local governments, especially
major cities with secondary treatment, Coalition for
Clean Water, Lakes Protective Association
Recommendations to other states:
Use advisory committee to set up implementation
rules; work out issues, make compromises, agree on
rules.
For more information, contact:
Steve Carley, Department of Ecology
(206) 459-6104
Presenter:
William J. Brah, President
The Center for the Great Lakes
435 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1408
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 645-0901
Focus of effort:
The Great Lakes Protection Fund is a $100 million en-
dowment created in 1989 by the eight Great Lakes
states. The Fund 1) provides a permanent source of
money (interest earnings on the endowment) for con-
tinuous development and demonstration of techniques
for ridding the Great Lakes of toxic pollution; and 2)
establishes a new regional body to provide greater
leadership and broader insights into this shared water
quality problem.
Successes:
Generating gubernatorial support and legislative fol-
low through are the main successes.
The fund went from a concept to reality in less than
four years. In February 1989 the eight Great Lakes
governors signed an agreement creating the Fund to
which they contribute their states' share over three
years. By July 1989 $39 million was contributed by five
state legislatures, and a board of directors was ap-
pointed by the governors. Grantmaking starts later in
1990.
Problems/Challenges:
Demonstrating feasibility; determining revenue shares
and sources; keeping regionally focused; and sup-
plementing, not duplicating, existing state and federal
programs are the main challenges overcome.
44

-------
The feasibility was shown by doing a public opinion
poll which showed strong support and willingness to
pay; showing commonality of problems and how
scarce state dollars are stretched by working coopera-
tively versus one jurisdiction at a time; and by
returning one-third of the interest earning directly to
the states.
Those who benefit help polluters pay for the cleanup
effort. State shares are based on their Great Lakes
water use. Recommendation that states raise revenue
by a small surcharge on Great Lakes water use was
bypassed by the states in favor of bonds and general ap-
propriations. The governors wanted flexibility.
Keeping the fund regionally focused is achieved by
giving each state the same number of representatives
on the board even though their contributions are une-
qual, and by having the board consist of individuals
with a regional perspective.
Duplication of existing state and federal water quality
programs is achieved by focusing the Fund on those
regional problems not receiving adequate attention
identified in a regional action program—the 1986
Toxic Substances Control Agreement.
Key Players:
The Center for the Great Lakes designed the Fund
and pulled diverse forces together to shape it.
The Council of Great Lakes Governors kept the gover-
nors personally involved in the process.
The C.S. Mott Foundation and William Donner Foun-
dation took a big risk in supporting a project with
uncertain prospects.
Recommendations to other states:
These are the keys to success of regional initiatives:
1.	A regional approach often influences otherwise
reluctant governors/state legislatures to participate to
avoid being left out.
2.	The initiative must be one which unites the region;
is do-able; is part of a long-term strategy but has short-
term payoffs.
3.	Participants must have direct access to the gover-
nors.
4.	The lead governor must be willing to get involved
with his/her peers at appropriate times during the
process.
5.	Significant deadlines focus attention.
6.	Participants must find the process intellectually en-
gaging-
7.	Involvement of the public, including key state legis-
lators and environmental groups, is important in
shaping the initiative.
8.	Private foundations must be willing to believe in the
process.
For more information, contact:
About the Fund feasibility study and agenda-setting
process, contact:
Dan Ray
The Center for the Great Lakes
435 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1408
Chicago, IL 60611
About the operations of the Fund, contact:
Nina MacLawhorn
Council of Great Lakes Governors
310 S. Michigan Avenue, 10th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
45

-------
Presenter:
Caroline Karp
The Narragansett Bay Project
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908-5767
(401) 277-3165
Focus of effort:
The terms "creative" or "innovative" financing came
into use simply because federal financial support for
water pollution control projects is vanishing, although
state obligations pursuant to federal law are not. As a
result, the states are obliged to close the revenue gap
via such "creative" financing schemes. However, a
range of realistic solutions are available to help close
this revenue gap.
Problems/Challenges:
1.	State environmental program obligations are in-
creasing.
2.	In "nominal" dollar amounts, federal (EPA) sup-
port for state programs has increased 460 percent
between 1972 and 1988. However, if the figures are ad-
justed to 1972 dollars, there has been no real increase
in federal support for state environmental programs
since 1980. Clean Water Act (Section 106) grams to
states have declined steadily since 1974 in 1972 con-
stant dollars.
3.	The federal contribution to Rhode Island's water
resources programs has been consistently larger than
the state share (corrected for debt service) between
1979 and 1989. However, the state's contribution to
the water resources program, both from general
revenues and restricted receipt accounts, has been
generally increasing since about 1985.
So, "creative" financing is a term of art for the slate's
need to locate alternative revenue sources to compen-
sate for the discrepancy between the state's revenue
needs and available federal dollars.
Recommendations to other states:
1.	"Non-Creative" Solutions
Increase federal support for water pollution control
programs to reflect the magnitude of public interest
in, and federal mandate of, these programs: either
directly via increased appropriations under the CWA,
CAA, etc.; or indirectly via other federal entitlement
programs. For example, expand eligibility under the
Federal Highway Trust Fund to include money for
nonpoint source control of highway runoff, including
retrofits.
Increase slate support from the general treasury to
reflect the magnitude of public support for these
programs.
Continue to float general obligation bonds on the prin-
ciple of "beneficiary pays" (e.g., RI AquaFund, RI
Environmental Trust Fund); and/or revenue bonds on
the principle that "user" or "polluter" pays (e.g., RI
Environmental Response Fund, municipal wastewater
treatment bonds)
2.	"Creative" Solutions
Restricted-receipt accounts for collection of "taxes,"
license fees, administrative penalties.
Examples:
•	The RI Hard to Dispose Act levies a surcharge on
"hard to dispose" items, e.g., tires, auto batteries,
organic solvents. The proceeds are used to defray
administrative costs, and to support ongoing tech-
nical assistance programs focused on hazardous
waste reduction and industrial pretreatment.
•	In 1989 the RI General Assembly approved a $.01
per 100 gallons of water surcharge, the proceeds
to be applied toward land acquisition for aquifer
protection.
46

-------
Keep trying—good ideas have to incubate.
•	In 1988 and 1989 the RI General Assembly ap-
proved various measures enabling the Rl
Department of Environmental Management to as-
sess permit/discharger fees for the air, wetlands,
ISDS, and surface water programs.
•	Narragansett Bay Project recommendations for
the 1991 legislative session will probably include a
requirement that industrial and municipal dis-
chargers either perform "local effects" monitoring
as a condition of their discharge permits or sub-
sidize some percent of the state's costs of
monitoring the receiving waters.
No cost/low cost reforms
•	Legislatively, expand revenue-bonding authority
of municipalities and utility, wastewater manage-
ment, and aquifer districts. Expanded authority
would enable local and/or regional authorities to
assess fees to finance local/regional solutions, e.g.,
implementation of nonpoint source pollution con-
trols in aquifer protection districts.
•	Legislatively and by inter-governmental agree-
ment centralize the administrative and/or
operational functions of municipal wastewater
treatment facilities to achieve a maximum
economy of scale.
•	Legislatively establish a single authority to
manage water supply and wastewater treatment in
order to achieve maximum efficiency of resource
use and take advantage of administrative
economics of scale.
Key elements of drafting effective environmental legis-
lation
1. Persistence: Keep trying—good ideas have to in-
cubate.
2.	Timing: Take advantage of a favorable economic
and/or political climate.
3.	Consensus: Involve a diversity of "stakeholders" in
the drafting process.
4.	Leadership: Organize around a person or issue.
Find a "spark."
5.	Language: Avoid jargon, define terms, find a com-
mon language.
6.	Lead Agencies: Define a lead agency to supervise
implementation.
7.	Deadlines: Establish ambitious, achievable dead-
lines in the body of the statute.
8.	Incentives: Include enforcement mechanisms
and/or incentives to induce compliance.
9.	Funds: Provide sufficient funds for administration
and implementation.
10.	Oversight: Mandate or allow public participation
in advisory or oversight capacity.
11.	Exposure: Use public hearings, "grass roots,"
trade organizations, and the press to publicize the
need for legislation.
For more information, contact:
Caroline Karp
(see above)
Presenter:
Jerry Bobo, Vice President
Smith Barney, Harris Upham and Company
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3229
Seattle, WA 98101
47

-------
(206) 628-4952
Focus of effort:
HR-5454, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Water
Pollution Abatement Trust: Creation of a leveraged
loan program to provide subsidized loans to com-
munities within the Commonwealth. Federal grants
and state matching funds (20 percent) are used as a
reserve for revenue bonds of the Trust and to make
loans to communities. Additional state contributions
arc used to provide interest subsidies and grants. Sub-
sidization will range from 45 to 75 percent of
borrowing requirements.
Successes:
HR-5454 was passed and signed by the governor in
1989. The capitalization grant application has been
submitted and approved by EPA. The Trust has been
formed and is reviewing implementation plans and
state funding procedures.
Problems/Challenges:
Greatest challenge has been the establishment of con-
trol systems, operating procedures, loan
documentation, and initial funding.
Key Players:
Trustees: Robert Q. Crane, Treasurer
Edward Lashman, Secretary of Administration and
Finance
Daniel S. Greenbaum, Commissioner, Department of
Environmental Protection
Legislation Author: Representative Emmet Hayes
Recommendations to other states:
1.	Conduct an in-depth assessment of actual construc-
tion costs and local ability to pay.
2.	Establish the willingness/ability of state to fund sub-
sidies.
3.	Get grassroots support for legislation through
education programs.
4.	Centralize the implementation process.
For more information, contact:
Rep. Emmet Hayes
State House
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 722-2256
Brian Jones
Assistant Chief Engineer
Department of Environmental Protection
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA
(617) 292-5737
Michael Lissack, Managing Director
Smith Barney, Harris Upham and Company, Inc.
1345 Ave. of the Americas, Floor 50
New York, NY 10105
(212) 698-3897
48

-------
Research and
Monitoring Programs
Presenter:
Sally Cole-Misch, Public Affairs Director
International Joint Commission
Regional Office
P.O. Box 32869
Detroit, MI 48232
313-226-2170
Focus of effort:
Great Lakes Research and Monitoring Initiatives—
Getting to Ecosystem Approach.
The Rouge River Interactive Water Monitoring
Project grew from one to 46 high schools in the river
basin over three years. Public pressure was important
for the start-up of the student monitoring project on
the Rouge River. The project is a two-week program
that teaches students the origins of pollution, how to
test for water quality, how society affects that quality,
and provides problem-solving tools to assist students
in determining how they want to solve pollution issues
for the river system.
The program was funded by the Ford Foundation and
the State of Michigan, including the use of University
of Michigan computer systems. Out of the $900 mil-
lion cost for the Rouge River cleanup effort, $500
million is for the combined sewer overflow separation.
(Local communities committed money to the com-
bined sewer overflow separation.) The other $400
million could be pared down with more cooperative ef-
forts, e.g., citizen groups raised over $500,000 last
year.
Successes:
The program has extensive support from governments,
foundations, and schools involved with the project. It
has been expanded, due to its popularity, into com-
munities throughout the Great Lakes, United States
and Canada, and is in the process of being established
in 13 other countries. Perhaps the greatest success is
that all participants are hooked up via computer, so
they learn that pollution is a universal challenge.
And, more importantly, students learn to take owner-
ship for their own river system, and develop a sense of
cooperation and community spirit as they go on—on
their own initiative—to propose and implement solu-
tions to their river's pollution dilemmas.
The students are doing a great job collecting accurate
conventional data. Sixteen percent of the students
were led to consider water quality careers.
Problems/Challenges:
There have been some difficulties in finding enough
people to train others in the program, due to lack of
funding. Foundations have contributed funds, so this
issue is, for the moment, resolved.
Key Players:
Dr. William B. Stapp, University of Michigan School
of Natural Resources
Mark Mitchell, also at UM, SNR and at Friends of the
Rouge
Sally Cole-Misch, IJC
Recommendations to other states:
The project is unique because it provides real-life ex-
periences to students and provides an opportunity for
them to become actively involved with environmental
issues at local, state/provincial, national, and interna-
tional levels. Initial support (human, primarily) is
needed to teach educators the program to ensure that
monitoring tests are done accurately, so they will be
considered relevant by decision makers. Schools need
to have or purchase testing equipment and have access
to a computer with a modem.
49

-------
For more information, contact:
Dr. William B. Stapp
University of Michigan School of Natural Resources
Dana Building
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(313) 764-1410
Mark Mitchell, Friends of the Rouge
12763 Stark Road, Suite 103
Livonia, MI 48150
(313) 427-1234
Sally Cole-Misch
(see above)
Presenter:
Andrea Copping, Ph.D., Monitoring and Research
Director
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
217 Pine Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 464-7320
Focus of effort:
Development and Implementation of the Puget Sound
Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) for Puget
Sound and surrounding watersheds. Development of
Puget Sound Research Program to coordinate and en-
hance Puget Sound research activities.
Successes:
Consensus among many public and private sector or-
ganizations to develop and implement PSAMP. Some
state money to implement PSAMP. Consensus among
public and private sector to develop Puget Sound Re-
search Program.
Problems/Challenges:
Because source control and remedial action programs
are so expensive, we must have the best information
possible with which to make management decisions.
Also, we must be able to verify the success of these
programs. Both of these needs can be addressed by a
comprehensive, Soundwide monitoring program, sup-
ported by an active research program.
Education, to raise public consciousness and to change
individual actions which cause pollution, is also a
necessary component to a clean Sound.
Key Players:
PSWQA, EPA, Region 10, Washington State Depart-
ments of Ecology, Fisheries, Health, Natural
Resources, Wildlife, local and tribal governments,
other federal agencies.
Recommendations to other states:
Important consideration for others designing ambient
monitoring programs:
•	Participation by all affected parties
•	Scientifically and statistically valid design
•	Long-term commitment by agencies
•	Adequate funding
For more information, contact:
Andrea Copping
(see above)
Presenter:
Jessica R. Lacey, Water Resource Control Engineer
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA 94244-2130
(916) 323-5698
50

-------
The challenge is to build consensus concerning research and
monitoring needs. Broad support pays off later on.
Focus of effort:
The California Ocean Plan regulates the discharge of
wastes to marine waters. There are two forums for
identifying research and monitoring needs to develop
the scientific basis for new parts of the Ocean Plan.
The first forum is the Triennial Review Process, which
is mandated by the water code. The second forum is
the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, a National
Estuary Program.
Successes:
The Triennial Review process has provided direction
for research into chronic bioassay protocols, bacterial
indicators, and sediment quality standards. A chronic
toxicity standard and the use of a new indicator or-
ganism are currently under consideration as
amendments to the Ocean Plan. The Santa Monica
Bay Restoration Project is planning to develop en-
vironmental monitoring objectives, which, if the
process is successful, could be used in the ocean plan
as well.
Problems/Challenges:
The challenge in these two approaches is to build con-
sensus among dischargers, regulators, environmental
groups, and the public concerning research and
monitoring needs. Broad support pays off later on.
For more information, contact:
Jessica Lacey
(see above)
Craig Wilson
SWRCB
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA 94244-2130
Presenter:
Sin-Lam Chan, Deputy Division Director
Environmental Conservation Division, NWC, NMFS,
NOAA
2725 Montlake Blvd. E.
Seattle, WA 98112
(206) 442-7737
Focus of effort:
Research, monitoring, and assessments conducted by
the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National
Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration.
Successes:
Have a record of success in research and development
in improving scientific tools for environmental
monitoring and assessments. In the forefront of apply
ing these tools in regional and national monitoring
programs. However, support and appreciation for
R&D are often elusive.
Problems/Challenges:
Generally little provision and appreciation for the
value of having parallel R&D for long term monitor-
ing programs.
Recommendations to other states:
Valuable and cost-effective to have a component of
R&D in long-term monitoring programs.
For more information, contact:
Sin-Lam Chan
(see above)
51

-------
Building Constituencies
For Estuary Programs
Presenter:
Frances Flanigan, Executive Director
Alliance for Chesapeake Bay, Inc.
6600 York Road
Baltimore, MD 21212
(301) 377-6270
Focus of effort:
Building constituencies for estuary programs—em-
phasis on getting scientists, managers, regulators,
legislators, and users talking to each other—looking
for common ground, for solutions to difficult problems.
Successes:
1.	Chesapeake Bay Agreement
2.	Critical Areas Legislation
3.	Phosphate Ban
4.	Involvement of Agriculture
5.	New water quality control standards for toxics
6.	Lots of money!
Problems/Challenges:
Building constituencies takes time. It is a political
process, essentially a network-building process. Good
information delivered in a timely way to key audiences
is important. Sometimes the best staff work can't
guarantee success if political leadership or other fac-
tors are missing.
Recommendations to other states:
1.	Constituency building must be an essential part of
an estuary program.
2.	Need to identify who should be part of the process,
how to get them involved, what you want them to do.
3.	Provide adequate staff and resources to get job done.
4.	Recognize long-term nature of task—I like to think
of it as building a human institution, which is no easy
job! Big issue on Chesapeake is growth—constituency
for statewide growth management is just beginning to
be formed.
For more information, contact:
Frances Flanigan (see above)
Presenter:
Trudy Coxe, Executive Director
Save the Bay
434 Smith Street
Providence, RI 02908
(401) 272-3540
Focus of effort:
Legislative focus: a) Land acquisition programs; b)
mandatory recycling; c) "hard to dispose of' tax; d)
sewage plant improvements.
Successes:
Land Preservation/Acquisition: Nearly $175 million
worth of bonds have been approved on several ballots;
all have received overwhelming support. RI can now
boast of spending more per capita on land acquisition
than any state in the country.
Mandatory Curbside Recycling: First state in the nation
to require town-by-town curbside recycling. RI's pro-
gram now includes more than half the towns and cities
in the state. Residents separate glass, cans, aluminum,
certain plastics, and newspapers. Participation rate is
over 90 percent; trash reduction rate is about 22 per-
cent. All other communities will be on line by the end
of 1991. People LOVE this program!
"Hard-to-Dispose-of" Tax: First of its kind in the na-
tion. Puts a small "fee" on items that are hard to get
52

-------
about 22 percent. All other communities will be on
line by the end of 1991. People LOVE this program!
"Hard-to-Dispose-of" Tax: First of its kind in the na-
tion. Puts a small "fee" on items that are hard to get
rid of, e.g., tires, solvents, crankcase oil, etc. Bill
passed in 1989, will be implemented soon. This com-
plements mandatory recycling by involving the
industrial community.
Sewage Plant Improvements: The Fields Point plant in
Providence has gone from being New England's
second most seTious polluter to being a well-run plant.
3000+ acres of shellfish grounds have been opened.
Largest bond issue in state's history (S87.7 million)
has helped provide the funding needed to get the plant
on line. RI decided not to rely on the federal govern-
ment and do the job itself.
Problems/Challenges:
Keeping the constituency "up".
Key Players:
All four bills enjoyed unique support from business,
labor, environmental, and government supporters.
Recommendations to other states:
Involve a cross-scction of interests.
For more information, contact:
Trudy Coxe or Curt Spalding (see above)
Presenter:
Sheila Kelly, Outreach Coordinator
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
217 Pine Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 464-7320
Focus of effort:
The Public Involvement and Education Model
Projects Fund (PIE-Fund) is one tool which the
PSWQA uses for constituency building. The PIE-
Fund is a part of a comprehensive education and
public involvement strategy presented in the Puget
Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The plan
puts strong emphasis on the use of education as a
resource management tool, an a par with regulation
and incentive.
The purpose of the PIE-Fund is to provide money to a
wide range of groups, i.e., local governments, tribal
governments, community and environmental organiza-
tions, etc., to develop projects using a wide variety of
techniques to address the whole range of water quality
protection issues: point and nonpoint source pollu-
tion, contaminated sediments, protection of wetlands,
fisheries, sheflfisfi, hazardous waste disposal, animal
waste disposal. The fund aims to develop models
which could be learned from and copied by other
groups in other areas around Puget Sound.
Successes:
Between 1987 and 1991 the PIE-Fund will have
received S2.2 million funding from the Washington
state Centennial Clean Water Fund, a revenue source
established in 1986 through a new tax on tobacco
products. (The Centennial Fund provides $45 million
annually for statewide water quality projects.)
From 1987 to 1989,47 PIE projects were funded
thoughout the 12-county Puget Sound basin. The
projects reached 1.5 million people directly or indirect-
ly, 1000 organizations were involved, and over 3,000
volunteers donated 69,000 hours of service. Ninety
products were produced, including manuals, posters,
curricula, signs, brochures, exhibits, and videos.
Of the 47 original projects, nearly 80 percent will con-
tinue, having secured other sources of funding. For
the 1989-91 biennium, it is anticipated that an addi-
tional 40 to 50 new projects will be funded. (A report
53

-------
documenting the first 47 projects will be available
from the Authority in June 1990. An evaluation of the
entire PIE-Fund program will be available in July
1991).
Problems/Challenges:
The challenges involved in this kind of program in-
clude:
•	Setting up a review and selection process which as-
sures thorough and equitable consideration of all
proposals. (To date, PSWQA has had to review
382 proposals.)
•	Setting up an administrative proces which allows
flexibility and encourages innovation within
projects, and at the same time pays close attention
to how the taxpayers' money is being spent to as-
sure that the projects are cost-effective.
•	Designing and carrying out an evaluation which
can document that this approach to water quality
protection is cost-effective.
Key Players:
Project Planners: Claire Dyckman, Sheila Kelly
Project Manager: Sheila Kelly
Contract Administrator: Susan Handley
Support Staff: Susan Folk
Proposal Reviewers: 10 PSWQA staff members and
11-member advisory group
Recommendations to other states:
You don't have to wait for a $1 million appropriation!
The PIE-Fund approach could be used at any level of
funding. It is an innovative, cost-effective approach to
public involvement and education. It generates excite-
ment, commitment, and amazing results. A few hints:
the guidelines and the categories in any request for
proposals should encourage innovation and broad par-
ticipation. The key principle is to get money out to
existing organizations, to use the structures already in
place at the local level for dealing with the many
aspects of water quality protection. The idea is to em-
power constituencies. Another key principle is an
emphasis on peer education, particularly in the private
sector, where agency-sponsored education is often not
welcomed. It is important to let private sector groups,
i.e., business, industries, trade associations, etc., know
of the opportunity for project funding, since most of
these groups would not usually consider themselves
eligible or appropriate; and experience has shown that
they are the most effective vehicle for educating their
"own."
For more information, contact:
Sheila Kelly (see above)
Presenter:
Joe Dial, Chairman, Citizens Advisory Committee,
Gulf of Mexico Program
1801 Melrose, Suite A
Victoria, TX 77901
(512) 573-5718
Focus of effort:
The purpose of the Gulf of Mexico Program is to
protect and enhance the living marine resources and
economic viability of the Gulf of Mexico, its bays and
estuaries.
Successes:
The progress toward cooperation and coordination by
and between the 11 federal and 54 state agencies has
been at a much more rapid rate than initially an-
ticipated. Participation by the members of the CDC
has been a dynamic facet of directing the mood and
momentum of the program.
Problems/Challenges:
The challenges are twofold: first, an attitude adjust-
ment by all the agencies; second, overcoming public
apathy.
54

-------
A key principle is an emphasis on peer education, particularly in
the private sector, where agency-sponsored education is often not
welcomed.
Recommendations to other states:
It is of utmost importance that environmental
programs have active citizen participation. The mem
bers of the CAC must represent the user areas
impacted by the program.
For more information, contact:
Joe Dial
(see above)
Dr. Douglas Lipka, Director, GMP
Building 1102, Room 202
Stennis Space Center, Mississippi 39529
(601) 688-3726
55

-------
The Role Of Local
Government
Presenter:
Judy Corbett, Executive Director, Local Government
Commission
909 12th Street, Suite 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916)448-1198
Focus of effort:
Overview of Local Government Commission programs
addressing ocean and bay pollution, with an emphasis
on our most successful effort—hazardous waste reduc-
tion programs.
Successes:
1.	Incorporation of hazardous waste reduction as the
key strategy in every California county hazardous waste
management plan.
2.	Implementation of numerous model programs in
California communities.
3.	Demonstration of the viability of the concept so that
it can be applied statewide (it is incorporated in a state
initiative).
Problems/Challenges:
Education, funding, coordination.
Key Players:
Local elected officials, staff.
Recommendations to other states:
1.	Establish a local government assistance program.
2.	Grants to local government are very important.
3.	Use land use planning for pollution prevention.
Map sensitive sites then zone to protect (no in-
dustries).
4.	Hazardous waste reduction—get at source of prob-
lem to decrease the volume.
5.	Inspect industries and then give them info on how
they could lower waste.
6.	Cities/counties can require waste reduction for those
with discharge permits; can require waste audits.
For more information, contact:
Judy Corbett/Tony Eulo
(see above)
Presenter:
Christine E. Reed, Council Member, Santa Monica
859-23rd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
(213) 828-4666
Focus of effort:
We had a problem—raw sewage overflows on a regular
basis in the summer; illegal dumping of hydrocarbons
and other toxics into storm drains which empty out
onto a broad, sandy beach.
We got negative attention—TV media, Ralph Nader,
Tom Haydcn, Heal the Bay.
We did something—convinced our C.O.G. to sponsor a
work effort to assess the state of Santa Monica Bay,
funded by local governments and private business; a
two-year effort to assess the state of pollution in the
bay and research on the bay.
Our congressman did something—got Santa Monica
Bay added to the eligibility list for the National Estuary
Program; got local government to support governor;
56

-------
Try to empower the lowest level of government by increasing its
professionalism, by making resources available to it.
got Santa Monica Bay Committee to support gover-
nor; got governor to nominate the bay.
Successes:
Today Santa Monica Bay is part of the National Es-
tuary Program. There is funding, discretionary money
from local government to fund small studies, joint
work effort to address the major problem—urban,
nonpoint, runoff.
Key Players:
Several mayors and one Los Angeles Council Member
Head of Los Angeles Board of Public Works
Assemblyman Tom Hayden and Levine
Recommendations to other states:
1.	The final message: work together; seek out the
local governments whose citizens use the water
resource (fishermen, scuba divers, surfers, beach-
goers, etc.); communicate to people that we
collectively caused the problem and that we must solve
it—easy sell with local elected officials who generally
understand the cause-effect relationship.
2.	Create incentives for not polluting, e.g., California
taxes those who don't retrofit toilets so there is an in-
centive to do so.
3.	Get groups together for group rates for drainage
and sewage improvements.
4.	Use gray water as a source of irrigation for golf cour-
ses.
5.	Local communities will tax themselves if they see
services returning to them. The result/benefit of the
tax must be clear—requires more efficiency in spend-
ing of tax money.
6.	Show the public the necessity for taking away
property rights for land use control.
For more information, contact:
Kathy Tyrrell
Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program
Regional Water Quality Control Board
101 Center Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, CA 91754-2156
Presenter:
Edwin Pratt, Jr., Selectman
Massachusetts Board of Health
2 Spring St.
Marion, MA 02738
(508) 748-2500
Focus of effort:
Relationship between federal, state and local govern-
ments. The need to treat environmental regulatory
and mangement issues holistically as part of a broader
matrix of social/political/economic issues confronting
all levels of government.
Successes:
Creation of a number of inter-local associations that
are problem-specific. A regional health district for
three towns, a Buzzards Bay coalition, and an ad hoc
committee of local government representation.
Problems/Challenges:
Keeping local government moving forward, becoming
more aware and competent in the face of federal and
state fiscal collapse.
Key Players:
Local elected officials.
Recommendations to other states:
Tiy to empower the lowest level of government by in-
creasing its professionalism, by making resources
available to it. If sound environmental behavior can-
57

-------
not become the norm at the village level, how can it
ever be imposed from "on high"?
Involve the individual in solutions, not creating
problems. Local government makes decisions on land
use, sewer, and runoff issues; this allows direct contact
with citizens and organizing volunteer efforts. Citizen
monitoring can be effective if citizens are given some
technical expertise and responsibility—can be helpful
making land use decisions and on sewer and runoff is-
sues.
For more information, contact:
Edwin Pratt
(see above)
Presenter:
George B. Cole, Councilman
Sussex County Council
Sussex County Courthouse,
Georgetown, DE 19947
(302) 856-7701
Focus of effort:
Because of documented environmental degradation
and threats to human health, a moratorium was
declared on the installation of septic systems along
U.S. Route 1 in southern Delaware.
Successes:
A cooperative effort between state and local govern-
ment is working to eliminate significant sources of
nutrients by providing adequate sewage collection and
treatment systems.
Problems/Challenges:
Many legal questions were raised. Hardship criteria
were developed such that businesses and individuals
demonstrating economic hardship would not be adver-
sely affected.
Key Players:
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and En-
vironmental Control, Delaware Department of Health
and Social Services, Sussex County.
Recommendations to other states:
State and local government agencies should work
together to avert environmental and health crises and
provide infrastructure needs. Agreement should be
reached as to which level of government is best
equipped with respect to legislative authority, existing
regulations, funding, and technical and administrative
resources.
For more information, contact:
Gerald L. Esposito, Director
Division of Water Resources
89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 140
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736-4860
Richard B. Howell, III
Division of Health and Social Services
Jesse S. Cooper Bldg.
Federal and Water Streets
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 736-5410
Richard L. Stickels
Sussex County Administrator
Sussex County Courthouse
Georgetown, DE 19947
(302) 855-7741
58

-------
Wetlands Protection
Presenter:
Katherine P. Ransel
Senior Attorney, Director of Wetland Programs
Environmental Law Institute
1616 P St. NW, Washington, DC 20036
(202) 328-5150
Focus of effort:
Legislative/regulatory initiatives on wetlands/states.
Remarks addressed, in addition to a summary of na-
tional and state developments relevant to wetlands
regulation by the states, a comparison of efforts in
1988-89 in two Chesapeake Bay states, Maryland and
Virginia, to pass comprehensive nontidal wetlands
regulatory legislation.
Successes:
Maryland passed a comprehensive nontidal wetlands
regulatory act in early 1989. Success of efforts has
been attributed to prior education efforts in the state
to familiarize the public with values of wetlands and
their importance to the health of the Chesapeake Es-
tuary; to extremely committed and effective leadership
in the part of the governor and the State Department
of Natural Resources; and to a united and persistent
environmental lobby.
Problems/Challenges:
The failure in Virginia to pass like legislation has been
attributed not only to a lack of all of the favorable ele-
ments that obtained in Maryland, but also to strategic
errors on the part of the initiators of the legislation;
the failure to infuse the legislative process with input
from respected wetland scientists; and, generally, dif-
ferent political climates and attitudes about private
property rights in Virginia and Maryland.
Key Players:
Maryland: Governor Schaefer; David Burke, Director
of Nontidal Programs, MD DNR; R. Clayton
Mitchell, Jr., speaker of the House of Delegates and
leader of the opposition.
For more information, contact:
David Burke, Director of Nontidal Programs
Maryland DNR
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
Presenter:
Robert Tudor, Assistant Director of Regulation
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
CN 401
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 984-3444
Focus of effort:
Wetlands protection in New Jersey
N.J.S.A 13:9B-1 et seq.
Successes:
1.	Evolution of legislation.
2.	Development of administrative regulations.
3.	Review of appeals to administrative regulations.
4.	Nuts and bolts of implementation process.
5.	Overview of success after 15 years of implementa-
tion.
Problems/Challenges:
Combating legislative efforts to water down key
provisions of law.
Key Players:
Builders, industrial and office park developers, Fresh-
water Wetlands Campaign (a coalition of 150
environmental groups).
59

-------
Although developing consensus among diverse groups can be
very time-consuming and frustrating, it can also result in more
effective programs and reduced controversy.
Recommendations to other states:
Find a legislator committed to the resource protection
goal and organize grass roots support.
For more information, contact:
Assemblywoman Maureen Ogden, District 22
266 Essex Street
Milburn, NJ 07041
Assemblyman John S. Penn, District 16
25 Maple Street
Somerville, NJ 08876
Thomas Gilmore
N J. Audubon Society
Sherman Hoffman Sanctuaries
Hardscrabble Road, Box 693
Bernardsville, NJ 07924
Abegail Fair
Association of NJ Environmental Commissions
300 Mendham Road, Route 157
Mendham, NJ 07945
David Fischer
Leisure Technology, Inc.
150 Airport Road
Lakewood, NJ 08701
Ms. Lloyd Tubman
Putney Hardin Kipp & Szuch
163 Madison Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
Presenter:
Edwin H. Clarke, 111, Secretary
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control
89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 140
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736-4403
Focus of effort:
Efforts of the National Wetlands Policy Forum and the
state of Delaware to develop effective and efficient wet-
lands protection programs and policies. The Forum
established the no-net loss goal which has been picked
up by the President and the agencies. The state is in
the process of drafting legislation.
Successes:
The Wetlands Forum's deliberations have been very in-
fluential in stimulating federal agency policy changes
and in stimulating follow-up action at the state level.
Delaware will introduce legislation this winter.
Problems/Challenges:
Significant difficulty in getting representatives from
widely differing perspectives to agree. Has been par-
ticularly difficult to continue the coalition during
implementation phase.
Key Players:
Three governors, Lee Thomas and heads of other
federal agencies, and all other members of the Forum.
Recommendations to other states:
Although developing consensus among diverse groups
can be very time-consuming and frustrating, it can also
result in more effective programs and reduced con-
troversy.
For more information, contact:
National Wetlands Policy Forum: Gail Bingham
The Conservation Foundation
1250 24th St., NW
Washington, D.C.
Delaware's Legislation: Mark Chura
DNREC
I (see above)
60

-------
Contaminated
Sediments and
Dredging
Presenter:
John S. Wakeman
Assistant Puget Sound Dredge and Disposal Analysis
Study Director
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
(206) 764-3708
Focus of effort:
Identification of environmentally and publicly accept-
able sites for disposal of dredged material in Puget
Sound. This is a 4-1/2 year, $4.5 million, four-agency
cooperative effort among the Corps of Engineers
(Seattle District), U.S. EPA (Region 10), and the
Washington State Departments of Ecology and
Natural Resources.
Successes:
Eight suitable sites have been designated by mid-
December 1989, and shoreline permits to DNR are
pending for five at this time. Two sites have been
used. The PSDDA database is inaugurated, and the
annual review process was implemented in February
1989. The program is serving as a model for dredged
material management in other states.
Problems/Challenges:
Concerns for inconsistency in the region versus nation-
ally almost killed the program in 1987. Concerns for
environmental protection and potential damages to
fisheries for Indian tribes were raised and addressed.
Key Players:
The PSDDA agencies, ports, Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, public and tribal participants in the
three technical work groups.
Recommendations to other states:
Use an open, participatory planning process. Techni-
cal work groups composed of representatives of
regulatory and resource agencies are vital to program
success, due both their input and to the consistent
education that occurs. Do not attempt to merely
adopt environmental criteria (e.g., sediment quality
guidelines), but consider applicable areas of scientific
information that may apply to the area being con-
sidered.
For more information, contact:
Mr. Frank J. Urabeck, PE
Chief, Plan Formulation Section (ENPS-EN-PL-PF)
Seattle District Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
Presenter:
Keith E. Phillips
Supervisor, Sediment Management Unit,
Environmentalist 5
Washington Department of Ecology
Mailstop PV-11, Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 459-6143
Focus of effort:
Sediment management activities in Puget Sound.
The state of Washington is implementing a com-
prehensive program to address contaminated
sediments found in the aquatic environment. Initially
focused on marine sediments in Puget Sound, the pro-
gram includes development of rules to establish
sediment quality standards, to regulate sources of sedi-
ment contamination, to manage dredging and dredged
61

-------
material disposal, and to clean up contaminated sedi-
ment sites. Pertinent statutes include: RCW 90.48
(Water Pollution Control Act), RCW 90.70 (Puget
Sound Water Quality Act), RCW 70.95 (Solid Waste
Management Act), and the federal Clean Water Act.
Successes:
Though the program is still mostly under development,
progress has been made in source control, dredged
material management, and sediment cleanup. Interim
sediment quality criteria have been established as a
first step towards formal standards. Control of sedi-
ment contamination sources has been recognized by
statute (e.g., RCW 90.48.520) and has become a key
consideration in point source discharge permits rela-
tive to monitoring requirements and prioritizing of
treatment strategies. A joint federal and state program
(Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis) for manage-
ment of unconfined, open-water disposal of navigation
dredged material has been implemented. Sediment
cleanup to date has been done in place (capping) and
has resulted primarily from voluntary actions as-
sociated with concurrent waterfront development
and/or real estate transactions.
Problems/Challenges:
Development of sediment quality standards presents
many technical and administrative challenges. The
scientific methods for derivation of chemical concentra-
tion criteria continue to receive extensive scientific
debate nationwide. And there are concerns regarding
how to establish numerical criteria while ensuring
reasonable considerations of cost and technical
feasibility in their regulatory uses. These concerns
have required concurrent development of detailed im-
plementation rules and strategies prior to adoption of
standards.
Key Players:
Federal and state regulatory agencies (e.g., Depart-
ment of Ecology and EPA)
Navigation interests (e.g., Corps of Engineers and
ports)
Discharge sources (e.g., industry and municipalities)
Cleanup interests (e.g., state aquatic lands proprietary
agency)
Recommendations to other states:
Sediment contamination is a common problem near
most developed waterfronts (marine and freshwater),
and contamination sources are both historic and ongo-
ing. Existing clean water laws, in combination with
solid and hazardous waste management laws, provide
adequate authority to begin to address contaminated
sediments. Since these sediments are associated with
ongoing adverse effects (i.e., they are actual, rather
than potential, chemical releases), states should sup-
port national programs, and where possible initiate
regional programs to improve source control relative
to sediments and to undertake cleanup where neces-
sary and reasonable.
For more information, contact:
Puget Sound sediment program planning: John
Dohrmann, PSWQA (206) 464-7320
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis: Frank
Urabeck, Seattle District Corps of Engineers (206) 764.
3604
Sediment Rules Development: Keith Phillips (see
above)
Presenter:
Hal Nelson, Head
Ocean Dumping Control
Environment Canada
Kapilano 100, Park Royal
West Vancouver, B.C., CANADA
(604) 666-2947
Focus of effort:
Ocean Dumping Regulation in Canada.
62

-------
Take great care in drafting new legislation. Deficiencies are very
difficult to remedy once the legislation is in place.
Successes:
Under the Ocean Dumping Control Act (1975-1988)
Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act
(CEP A) 1988-
Problems/Challenges:
Proposed changes to CEPA and Ocean Dumping
Regulations, 1988.
Key Players:
Federal Departments of Environment, Fisheries and
Oceans, Transport, Provincial Ministry of Environ-
ment.
Recommendations to other states:
Take great care in drafting new legislation. Deficien-
cies are very difficult to remedy once the legislation is
in place. After years of litigation over existing laws,
Canada is setting new, viable ocean dumping regula-
tions. What makes a workable regulation and why?
Although there was general disagreement concerning
the appropriate methods, everyone considered that
good measurement for biological effects and viable
levels for regulatory response were essential.
For more information, contact:
Charalyn Kriz, Head
Ocean Dumping and Marine Program
Management and Emergencies Branch
Environmental Protection
Conservation and Protection
Environment Canada
15th Floor, Place Vincent Massey
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OH3 CANADA
Presenter:
Barry Nelson, Executive Director
Save the San Francisco Bay
P.O. Box 925
Berkeley, CA 94701
(415) 849-3044
63

-------
Spill Prevention and
Response
Presenter:
Steve Hunter, Assistant Director
Washington Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11, Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 459-6012
Focus of effort:
Oil spill legislation.
Oil spill issues—state perspective.
Successes:
1.	Some small successes so far (SHB 2242; SHB 1853
and 185 A, which address assessment of oil spill
damages).
2.	Federal legislation successes.
3.	States/BC Oil Spill Task Force.
Problems/Challenges:
Exploiting the current climate
•	Jurisdictional problems (SCC, state, local, in-
dustry)
•	Funding problems (state general fund, toxics,
federal government)
•	Policy problems (expectations, workload, reaction
to press/public)
•	Plans arc OK, but time and money is needed for
prevention, training, and drills.
"Low probability" (e.g., catastrophic spills) events DO
happen.
Pushing a "partnership" with industry.
Key Players:
Legislators, oil industry, press, environmental groups.
Recommendations to other states:
1.	Have a spill—nothing else gets their attention.
2.	Learn from Valdez—ride the wave.
3.	Use the Task Force as an example of interstate/inter-
national cooperation.
4.	Establish a revenue source.
For more information, contact:
USCG (Seattle District)
Legislators (Nancy Rust)
Industry (Clean Sound Cooperative - Wiechart)
PSWQA
Presenter:
Eric Nalder, Reporter
The Seattle Times
P.O. Box 70
Seattle, WA 98111
(206) 464-2056
Focus of effort:
The Seattle Times investigation into oil tankers began
shortly after the Exxon Valdez accident, as we began
hearing more and more about the weaknesses in the oil
spill prevention system. Much of the news coverage
was focused on problems with the cleanup of the Exxon
Valdez spill, so we chose to look at how such accidents
could be avoided in the first place.
What we discovered was a vast international system in
which no one is in control, but everyone has an in-
fluence, including the motorist.
Regulation is spotty at best. I have done a number of
investigations in the nuclear business—mostly in the
nuclear weapons business. The oversight and account-
64

-------
Have a spill—nothing else gets their attention.
ability in the nuclear weapons business has been the
subject of many stories—and much controversy—but
it is far, far better than what I found in the oil
transportation business.
Problems/Challenges:
The most effective way to regulate maritime traffic is
by international treaty, since ships travel in interna-
tional waters. But getting a treaty passed is a
horrendous task.
The people who advocated double bottoms in the mid-
'70s were roundly defeated in 1978 at an international
UN convention in London. The U.S. delegation was
led by a Coast Guard admiral who was lukewarm, at
best, toward requirements for double bottoms. Coast
Guard studies had shown that double bottoms would
prevent most oil spills. But the loudest arguments
were made in favor of a few technical issues. It is pos-
sible, in some rare instances, that a double bottom
would be hazardous where a ship is aground on an un-
stable rocky perch.
In the end, at the 1978 convention, only one country,
France, supported the U.S. idea for double bottoms.
All studies ceased at that point. Yet in preparing my
story, I talked to salvage experts, and every one of
them said that a double bottom, in most cases, makes
the salvage of an oil tanker easier.
Oil-tanker safety is an issue of tremendous concern to
the residents of the Puget Sound area, but state regula-
tion of tankers is difficult to achieve. Federal laws
take precedence. There has been some interest in this
state in regulation of tanker speed and improved rules
for ship pilots. The Alaska Oil Spill Commission
recently urged states like Washington to take a more
aggressive stance toward maritime regulation. But at
least one Washington state official told me she is very
reluctant to do so, feeling instead that she can rely on
the Coast Guard to do the job.
The six-day Seattle Times series reveals the fragile
layer of protection that this nation and other nations
provide against oil spills such as the Exxon Valdez dis-
aster in Alaska. It questions how and why the U.S.
Coast Guard, Congress, and the oil industry allowed
the construction of oil tankers that have the thinnest
possible hulls, the lowest-powered engines, and the
minimum array of safety equipment.
It describes how the Coast Guard has slapped the
hands of ship captains and crew members for drunken
behavior that caused accidents and hazards. It shows
how the Coast Guard approved tanker crew sizes so
small that even some industry officials are uncomfort-
able with them. It details how aging tankers are
breaking up in the waves in the Gulf of Alaska, and
how these ships sometimes become drifting oil cans
simply because a mechanical or electrical part the size
of a pencil eraser breaks down.
It tells how the Coast Guard—supposedly the
government's first line of defense against ship dis-
asters—has cut back on its vigilance while turning its
attention to the drug war. It describes how tankers sail
the worst possible routes in Washington state waters.
And finally, it presents some solutions.
In preparing our story, we met a wall of resistance as
we tried to gather information from Exxon and other
oil shippers. Arco, however, agreed to cooperate and
allowed me to accompany the tanker Arco Anchorage
on a voyage from Valdez, Alaska, to Cherry Point,
Washington, carrying 35 million gallons of crude oil.
There were thousands of pages of documents to gather
in order to understand the world of oil tankers. Com-
piling this story required the filing of more than 30
Freedom of Information requests to government of-
fices all over the country, lite documents that were
used included: Compilations of Coast Guard spill and
accident data; investigative files from disciplinary
cases filed against merchant marine officers and
seamen; investigation reports that followed tanker ac-
cidents; tanker industry reports including internal
65

-------
We discovered a vast international system in which no one is in
control, but everyone has an influence, including the motorist.
documents obtained from sources; investigations by
the National Transportation Safety Board; academic
papers; consultant reports; university papers; marine
architect reports; reports done by industry analysts; in-
dividual tanker statistics compiled by the Coast Guard
and by consultants in New York and London; federal
regulations; congressional reports; ship operations
manuals; contingency reports—and boxes and boxes
full of more documents.
Key Players:
But the documents were only part of the story. I inter-
viewed hundreds of people. These included tanker
crewmen and officers from all levels on several dif-
ferent ships, former crewmen who had been
disciplined, lawyers, oil company executives, industry
experts, academics, engineers, marine architects, a
metallurgist, scientists, industry consultants in the U.S.
and abroad, dozens of Coast Guard officers and inspec-
tors, oil terminal operators, refinery operators,
environmentalists, marine wildlife experts, state offi-
cials, congressmen, congressional staff members,
witnesses in disciplinary cases, classification society of-
ficials, representatives from flag-of-convenience
countries, operators of ship simulators, and many
others. In some cases, these people were reluctant to
talk because they are associated with the oil industry.
Recommendations to other states:
Why doesn't the environmental community and the
EPA get into the international arena to improve
navigation standards? The International Maritime Or-
ganization approves treaties. After major spills in the
'70s, the Coast Guard added 169 new inspectors; now
102 have been dropped. Very few countries will ask
their industries to spend big money on double hulls
and bottoms, although they are probably the most ef-
fective way to contain spills. EPA is no one
internationally. The State Department and the Coast
Guard are involved, but there is no chance of getting
double bottoms/hulls passed in the international arena.
For more information, contact:
Copies of the series "Tankers Full of Trouble," can be
obtained from Eric Nalder, The Seattle Times, P.O.
Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111.
Presenter:
J.D. Snyder, Director
Office of the Great Lakes
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-3588
Presenter:
J.D. Hair, President
National Wildlife Federation
1400 16th St. NW
Washington, DC 20036-2266
(202) 797-6842
66

-------
Nonpoint Source
Pollution
Presenter:
Richard Wallace, Supervisor
Nonpoint Source Unit
Department of Ecology
Mailstop PV-11, Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 438-7069
Focus of effort:
Forest practices, Chapter 76.09 RCW.
Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement (TFW).
Local Planning and Management of Nonpoint Source
Pollution, Chapter 400-12 WAC.
Successes:
1.	Consensus and teamwork by agencies, industry, en-
vironmental groups, and Indian tribes in managing
forest-based resources.
2.	Local "grass roots" efforts for comprehensive plan-
ning for control of nonpoint source pollution.
Problems/Challenges:
1.	Pressures brought on by rate of growth in the Puget
Sound area.
2.	Implementation of comprehensive watershed plans.
Key Players:
Legislators, agencies, environmental groups, industry,
Indian tribes, local government, and conservation dis-
tricts.
Recommendations to other states:
Build coalitions and consensus before going to the
legislature.
Adoption of legislation and regulations is easy when
everyone is working together.
For more information, contact:
Richard Wallace
(see above)
Presenter:
David W. Sides, Director
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-2302
Focus of efTort:
1989-90 Allocation:
Best Management Practices (BMPs) $6/756,111
Technical Assistance $825,0
-------
Build coalitions and consensus before going to the legislature.
2. Solicit assistance from broad range of environmental
groups.
For more information, contact:
David Sides or Jim Cummings
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Presenter:
Michael Llewelyn, Chief
Nonpoint Source / Land Management Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 266-9254
Focus of effort:
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Program, Chapter 144
Successes:
1.	10-year history, 40 priority watersheds selected.
2.	$50 million appropriated for assistance sharing pro-
gram.
Problems/Challenges:
Several legislative audits concerned with lack of central
water quality management quantification.
Key Players:
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture is strong
partner. Needed to have their involvement to assure
agricultural community's participation.
Recommendations to other states:
Nonpoint source program needs central administrative
agency. Avoid fragmenting overall responsibility
among too many groups. However, allow direct invol-
vement of state agricultural agency.
For more information, contact:
Michael Llewelyn
(see above)
68
-------
Marine Debris
Presenter:
Roberta W. Weisbrod, Ph.D.
Special Assistant to the Commissioner
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
47-40 21st Street
Long Island City, NY 11101
(718) 482-4992
Focus of effort:
Floatables Action Plan (U.S. - Japan Fishery Agree-
ment Approval Act of 1987, Title 2, Marine Plastic
Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987; P.L. 100-
220). EPA-led effort to collect floatable debris within
the New York Harbor in order to prevent escape and
subsequent fouling of area beaches.
Beach Information Network (BIN). New York state
legislative appropriation ($2 million) for enforcement
personnel and equipment, for beach cleanup equip-
ment, and for the BIN, which trained beach operators
how to respond to beach wash-ups and is a reporting
system to track these events, particularly to alert neigh-
boring beaches and also to inform tourists and
residents about beach conditions.
Successes:
See above.
Problems/Challenges:
To limit syringes by public education; to reduce
marine debris in general by curbing dumping and
street litter and by correcting combined sewer over-
flows. Massive public education and massive
infrastructure revision (NYC has earmarked $1.5 bil-
lion for CSO abatement alone, as a result of NYC
DEC SPDES permit conditions) are needed.
Key Players:
NYSDEC, EPA, USACE, USCG, NJDEP, NYCDOS,
NYCDEP
Recommendations to other states:
Prepare and disseminate guidance to beach operators;
prepare interagency notification scheme: the
economic loss of beach wash-ups is as serious as any
natural disaster.
For more information, contact:
Floatables Action Plan:
Paul J. Molinaria, EPA, (212) 264-2513
Beach Information Network:
Ron Foley, NYS Parks, (516) 669-1000.
Presenter:
Dianne R. Hunt
State of Mississippi Marine Debris Coordinator, Staff
Biologist
2620 Beach Blvd.
Biloxi, MS 39531
(601) 385-5860
Focus of effort:
Mississippi Marine Litter Act of 1989
Senate Bill No. 2675
Successes:
The passage of this bill marked the first time that legis-
lation dealing with the environment in Mississippi
passed the same year that it was introduced. It took
three years for the Mississippi Coastal Wetlands
Protection Act of 1973 to pass and four years for
Mississippi's Coastal Program (1980) to pass. Senate
Bill 2675 passed the Senate without objections. Major
catalyst and impact in passage was beach cleanup
results of 1988 in which 45 tons of debris were picked
up over 30 miles of Mississippi's shoreline within a
three-hour period.
69
-------
Problems/Challenges:
There was some challenge in the House, and passage
was contingent on incorporating a two-year repeal
clause. Our agency feels that two years is not really an
adequate period of time to realistically test the bill's ef-
fectiveness.
Key Players:
Resource agency staff and personnel; legislative sup-
port from all of our coastal counties; legislators from
outside the target area promoting legislative concept.
Speaker of the House Tim Ford had, through coastal
acquaintances, participated in the 1988 coastal cleanup.
Recommendations to other states:
1.	Pass legislation consistent with federal laws (such as
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act).
2.	Fund monies necessary to provide adequate enforce-
ment of the law and an individual who can focus strictly
on education and awareness programs relating to this
issue.
3.	Increase repeal time to allow more widespread publi-
cation and enforcement of law.
4.	Recruit support from other areas of the state by
showing the benefits of the legislation outside of the
primary site of effect.
For more information, contact:
Joe Gill, Jr., 2620 Beach Blvd., Biloxi, MS 39531
Senator Stephen Hale, 4502 Fort St., Pascagoula, MS
39567
Senator Dick Hall, P.O. Box 55943, Jackson, MS 39216
Senator Tommy Gallott, 390 E. Bay View Ave., Biloxi,
MS 39530
Representative Diane Peranich, 25176 Lechene Drive,
Pass Christian, MS 39571
Representative Alvin C. Endt, 107 White Avenue,
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
Speaker of the House, Rep. Tim Ford, P.O. Box 1018,
Jackson, MS 39215
Presenter:
Jill Kauffman, Director
Pacific Coast Marine Debris Program
Center for Marine Conservation
312 Sutter, Suite 606
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 391-6204
Focus of effort:
The United States signed an international treaty on
December 31,1987, banning the dumping of plastic gar-
bage from ships at sea. Known as Annex V of the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollu-
tion from Ships (or the MARPOL treaty), the treaty
prohibits at-sea dumping of plastic materials and regu-
lates the distance from shore that all other solid waste
materials may be dumped.
The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control
Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-220, Title II) is the U.S.
implementing legislation for Annex V. While ocean
disposal of garbage produced on land has been
prohibited by the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act and the Clean Water Act since the
early 1970s, two additional U.S. measures, the Medical
Waste Tracking Act of 1988 and the Ocean Dumping
Ban Act of 1988, aim to reduce that portion of marine
debris that is generated on land and continues to be il-
legally dumped at sea.
Will legislation reduce the marine debris problem? If
so, how will we know? Because of the efforts of more
than 47,500 U.S. citizens, we now know the most
70
-------
Beach cleanups are a positive, active citizen event where people
can actually make a difference.
prevalent types of marine debris and where it comes
from.
During the 1988 Beach Cleanup, these people par-
ticipated in the most extensive effort to date to
categorize the types and quantities of marine debris
found in U.S. coastal areas. The data collected by
these volunteers established a baseline from which we
can now monitor the effectiveness of the MARPOL
treaty and other measures to reduce the marine debris
problem.
Information from this citizen monitoring effort was
complied by the Center for Marine Conservation
(formerly the Center for Environmental Education) as
part of the first National Marine Debris Database.
The Database was established in 1988 for beach
cleanups first conducted during Coastweeks '88 (Sep-
tember 17-October 10). The Center's Database is
sponsored in cooperation with the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard.
Subsequent analysis of the data rendered some very in-
teresting information about the types of debris on our
coastlines.
Successes:
Beach cleanups are a positive, active citizen event
where people can actually make a difference. By clean-
ing beaches and recording the trash found, individuals
take part in solving environmental problems at the
local level.
Legislative Successes:
Data from the 1986 Texas Coastal Cleanup helped
convince legislators to pass the MPPRCA, banning
the dumping of plastic in the ocean.
Results from the 1988 Florida Coastal Cleanup indi-
cated a serious problem of monofilament fishing line
on Florida's coasts. Legislation and citizen action
projects have been initiated since then to address the
problem.
Problems/Challenges:
The biggest challenge to reducing marine debris is ef-
fective implementation of the legislation, MARPOL
Annex V, to ban the dumping of plastic at sea. This
legislation addresses ocean sources of debris. There is
also a significant problem with land-based sources of
trash which has not been addressed legislatively.
Key Players:
State beach cleanup coordinators, volunteers, Center
for Marine Conservation.
Recommendations to other states:
Newsletter available from the Center for Marine Con-
servation ("Coastal Connections") for organizers to
exchange information and ideas about organizing a
beach cleanup.
Encourage states to utilize the data to instigate legisla-
tion and citizen action to reduce marine debris.
For more information, contact:
Jill Kauffman
(see above)
Presenter:
James M. Coe
Program Manager, NMFS Marine Entanglement
Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
7600 Sand Point Way NE - BIN C15700
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 526-4009
Focus of effort:
Federal marine debris programs and their implica-
tions for state action.
71
-------
Toxic Pollution
Presenter:
Cynthia A. Dunn
Pennsylvania Coordinator
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
225 Pine Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 236-8825
Focus of effort:
Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Toxics Reduction
Strategy.
Successes;
All the Chesapeake Bay States have developed, or are
developing, water quality standards and biomonitoring
programs.
The work plan which describes selection criteria and
methods by which the "Toxics of Concern" list will be
developed is complete and being circulated for public
comment.
Key Players:
Region III, U.S. EPA (especially the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office), State of Maryland, Commonwealths of
Pennsylvania and Virginia, District of Columbia, other
federal and regional agencies and committees.
Recommendations to other states:
A "Toxics of Concern" list for a particular estuary is an
improvment over using just the EPA priority pollutant
list from Section 307(a) because it enables the decision
makers to target control and cleanup strategies to the
toxins that are of primary concern in their estuary.
For more information, contact:
For Chesapeake Bay Agreement and/or Toxics Reduc-
tion Strategy:
Carole Ann Barth
Chesapeake Regional Information Service
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
6110 Executive Blvd., Suite 300
Rockville, MD 20852
1-800-662-CRIS
For detailed Chesapeake Bay Toxics Program informa-
tion:
Katherine Farrell, Chair
Toxics Subcommittee
Maryland Department of the Environment
301 W. Preston St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301) 225-5385
Presenter:
Marsha Landolt, Ph.D., Associate Dean
College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Focus of effort:
Cancerous and precancerous lesions in fishes of Puget
Sound, Washington.
Presenter:
Steve W. Tedder
Chief, Water Quality Section
North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-7015
Focus of effort:
Toxic controls.
72
-------
Gaining Legislative
Support
Presenter:
Virginia State Delegate W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.
Member, Virginia House of Delegates
Virginia House of Delegates
Richmond, VA
(804) 333-4051
Focus of effort:
1.	Effects of land use upon water quality:
•	Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (mandatory
nonpoint source water quality criteria for
tidewater local governments to use in comprehen-
sive plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, and other local ordinances).
•	Stormwater Management Act (optional
stormwater management criteria that can be
adopted by local governments throughout Vir-
ginia).
2.	Nontidal wetlands protection (proposed legislation
to place restrictions on conversion of wetlands, par-
ticularly those nontidal wetlands not regulated by
specific, individual Corps of Engineer permits).
3.	Growth management (legislative study to evaluate
need for reduction of adverse effects on natural and
cultural resources by major population growth ex-
pected between the present and the year 2020).
Successes:
1. Chesapeake Bay Land Use Roundtable /
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act:
•	Formation of Roundtable as dialogue group com-
posed of a wide range of land use interests.
•	Year-and-a-half consensus building process by the
Roundtable.
•	Final report calling for mandatory land use re-
quirements on local governments and new state
regulatory board to develop criteria, provide assis-
tance, and exercise oversight.
•	Rapid formation of drafting committee composed
of small group of lawyers and planners with
generally the same range of views as the
Roundtable.
•	Major commitment for passage by the governor
and key legislators.
•	Short, fixed timeframe for regulatory develop-
ment.
•	Significant public participation in regulatory
process.
•	Realization of state commitment for funding and
assistance remains most important factor for im-
plementation.
2. Virginia Growth Commission:
•	Major effort to move beyond water quality
oriented approach of Chesapeake Bay Preserva-
tion Act.
•	Focus on "legitimizing" discussion of growth
management in state that abolished its state plan-
ning agency over a decade ago.
•	Proponents seeking to enlarge and make per-
manent the commission.
73
-------
Match words with deeds in funding.
Problems/Challenges:
1. Nontidal Wetlands Act:
•	Highly controversial, very regulatory approach un-
successful in first year effort.
•	"Ran interference" for Chesapeake Bay Preserva-
tion Act, making its passage easier.
•	Formal legislative task force, formed after first
year effort, unsuccessful at building consensus in
second year.
•	Current effort is to base state administrative pro-
gram on existing state Clean Water Act 401 players.
Key Players:
Policy discussion groups comprised of multiple interest
groups, key legislators, governor, and administration.
Recommendations to other states:
Build consensus in advance.
Presenter:
Pennsylvania State Senator Roy W. Wilt
Pennsylvania State Senate
Room 281, Main Capitol
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 787-1322
Focus of effort:
Improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, Lake
Erie, and Delaware Bay. Pennsylvania's participation
in the Chesapeake Bay cleanup agreements and efforts
to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
Successes:
Programs to improve water quality in Pennsylvania and
in the Chesapeake Bay are in place. Legislation to
limit phosphate detergents (Act 31 of 1989) has
passed. Participation in the Chesapeake Bay Commis-
sion (Act 25 of 1985, P.L. 64)
Problems/Challenges:
Convincing citizens, local officials, and farmers to par-
ticipate in a program that largely benefits a body of
water outside the state.
Key Players:
Pennsylvania Legislature, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, farm organizations.
Recommendations to other states:
Stress local environmental and economic benefits.
For more information, contact:
Richard Fox, Executive Secretary
Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution
Control and Conservation Committee
Box 254, Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Presenter:
Washington State Senator Phil Talmadge
1725 SW Roxbury #6
Seattle, WA 98106
(206) 764-4334
Focus of effort:
Need for reauthorization of independent PSWQA;
match words with deeds in funding; research function
for Sound; need for active citizens' movement.
Successes:
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority; Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan.
Problems/Challenges:
PSWQA reauthorization; citizens' movement.
74
-------
Key Players:
Governor, legislature, public.
Recommendations to other states:
Build grass roots constituency for program.
For more information, contact:
Phil Talmadgc
(see above)
Presenter:
California State Assemblyman Tom Hayden
State Assembly, California
227 Broadway, #300, Sacramento, CA 90401
(213) 393-2717
Focus of effort:
Gaining state legislative support.
75
-------
Geographic Index
Geographic categories include both states and Nation-
al Estuary Programs. If a presentation focused on both
a particular state and an estuary program, it is listed in
both categories.
Geographic Location
California: 35,38,50, 56,70.
Canada: 62.
Chesapeake Bay: 16,17,19, 21,37,52, 59,72,73,74.
Delaware: 43, 58,60.
Florida: 42.
Great Lakes: 23, 26,44, 49.
Gulf of Mexico: 54.
Long Island Sound: 33,69.
Maryland: 16,19,37,59.
Massachusetts: 37, 57.
Mississippi: 69.
Narragansett Bay: 33,46, 52.
New York: 33,69.
New Jersey: 59.
North Carolina: 67.
Ohio: 23.
Oregon: 38.
Pennsylvania: 19,74.
Puget Sound: 1,2,9,10,28, 30,31,41,44,50,53,61,
64,67,74.
Rhode Island: 33,46,52.
Santa Monica Bay: 56.
Virginia: 16,19,21,59,73.
Wisconsin: 68.
77
-------
Key Issue Index
Speech summaries are listed according to their
primary focus, rather than the organization repre-
sented or program function.
A.	Federal programs. Estuary programs presented
from the perspective of the federal government: 11,
59,60,61,62.
B.	State programs. Estuary programs presented from
the perspective of a state government: 16,23,33,37,
38,46, 60,61,62,64,67,68, 69,70,73, 74.
C.	I^>cal programs. Estuary programs presented from
the perspective of city or county governments: 16, 38,
41,42, 56,57,58.
D.	Cooperative efforts. Projects requiring coordina-
tion across political boundaries of agencies, cities,
counties, and/or states: 3,10,16,17,19,26,28,33,35,
44,54, 60,72,74.
E.	Funding Mechanisms. Approaches to secure start-
up and ongoing funding: 19, 26, 33,44, 46, 47,52, 58.
F.	Legislation. Description of specific legislation as
well as legislative process: 11,19, 23, 28, 33, 46, 52, 59,
69,74.
G.	Assessment of resources and contamination.
Projects to identify and quantify existing status of
resources and levels of contamination: 50,51,61,72.
II. Cleanup efforts. Focuses on cleaning up prior con-
tamination which has already been identified: 16, 35,
56,61, 69,70, 72.
I. Prevention efforts. Targets the prevention of future
pollution and the maintenance of existing resources:
23, 37, 38, 41, 42,43,61, 62, 67,68, 73.
J. Public education and constituency building. Ex-
plores the process of creating public support with
education and public involvement: 3,16,17,49,52
53, 54, 70.
K. Role of the media. Demonstrates the value of dif-
ferent media types and approaches in creating
environmental change: 3,21,31,64.
78
-------
Roster of Registrants:
Legislators
California
Honorable Tom Hayden
California Assembly
227 Broadway #300
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(213) 393-2717
Connecticut
Honorable John Atkin
Connecticut Senate
Legislative Office Bldg. Rm 2200
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 240-0488
Delaware
Honorable John Schroeder
Delaware House of Representatives
47 Edgewater Drive
Lewes, DE 19958
(302) 645-0670
Maiyland
Honorable Gerald W. Winegrad
Maryland Senate
90 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 841-3578
Minnesota
Honorable Mary Murphy
Minnesota House of Representatives
State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296-2676
Honorable Leo Reding
Minnesota House of Representatives
709 12th Avenue NW
Austin, MN 55912
Mississippi
Honorable Stephen Hale
Mississippi Senate
4502 Fort Street
Pascagoula, MI 39561
(601) 769-6318, (601) 762-7384
New York
Honorable Owen II. Johnson
New York Senate
Room 310 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
(518) 455-3411
North Carolina
Honorable Bruce Etheridge
North Carolina House of Representatives
715 Ann St.
Beaufort, NC 28516
(919) 728-2600
Honorable Joseph Hackney
North Carolina House of Representatives
P.O. Box 1329
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
(919) 929-0323
79
-------
Ohio
Honorable Robert Boggs
Ohio Senate
State House
Columbus, OH 43216
(614) 644-7718
Pennsylvania
Honorable Roy W. Wilt
Pennsylvania Senate
Senate P.O. Box 50
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 787-1322
Rhode Island
Honorable Sean Coffey
Rhode Island Senate
22 James St.
Providence, RI02903
(401) 277-6625
Texas
Honorable Carlos F. Truan
Texas Senate
P.O. Box 12068
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 463-0120
Virginia
Honorable W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.
Virginia House of Delegates
P.O. Box 527
Warsaw, VA 22572
(804) 333-4051
Washington
Honorable Scott Barr
Washington Senate
Route 1 Box 130
Edwall, WA 99008
(206) 786-7612
Honorable Jennifer Belcher
Washington House of Representatives
323 Maple Park
Olympia, WA 98501
(206) 786-7992
Honorable Alan Bluechel
Washington Senate
9901 NE 124th #505
Kirkland, WA 98034
(206) 786-7672
Honorable Roy A. Ferguson
Washington House of Representatives
2955 162nd SE
Bellevue WA 98008
(206) 786-7936
Honorable Jim Horn
Washington House of Representatives
9507 SE 61st Place
Mercer Island, WA 98040
(206) 786-7894
Honorable Paul H. King
Washington House of Representatives
22804 57th Avenue W
Mountalke Terace, WA 98043
(206) 786-7892
80
-------
Honorable Mike Kreidler
Washington Senate
425 John A. Cherberg Bldg.
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 786-7642
Honorable Gary Locke
Washington House of Representatives
5150 S. Wildwood Lane
Seattle, WA 98118
(206) 786-7838
Honorable Fred O. May
Washington House of Representatives
15 Brook Bay Lane
Mercer Island, WA 98040
(206) 786-7926
Honorable Patty Murray
Washington Senate
528 NW 203rd PL
Seattle, WA 98177
(206) 786-7600
Honorable Dick Nelson
Washington House of Representatives
2208 NW Market Street, #305
Seattle, WA 98107
(206) 786-7826
Honorable Michael E. Patrick
Washington House of Representatives
18809 134th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98055
(206) 786-7858
Honorable Larry Phillips
Washington House of Representatives
2624 34th W
Seattle, WA 98199
(206) 786-7860
Honorable Nancy S. Rust
Washington House of Representatives
18747 Ridgefield Rd NW
Seattle, WA 98177
(206) 786-7880
Honorable Dick Schoon
Washington House of Representatives
P.O. Box 3247
Federal Way, WA 98063
(206) 786-7898
Honorable Duane Sommers
Washington House of Representatives
S 2812 Wall Street
Spokane, WA 99203
(206) 786-7876
Honorable Art Sprenkle
Washington House of Representatives
14330 Tester Rd
Snohomish, WA 98290
(206) 786-7816
Honorable Phil Talmadge
Washington Senate
1725 S.W. Roxbury, #5
Seattle, WA 98106
(206) 764-4334
81
-------
Honorable Georgette Valle
Washington House of Representatives
1434 SW 137th St
Seattle, WA 98166
(206) 786-7952
Honorable Sally W. Walker
Washington House of Representatives
4617 Bellvicw St W
Tacoma, WA 98466
(206) 786-7958
Honorable Shirley Winsley
Washington House of Representatives
539 Buena Vista Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98466
(206) 786-7890
Wisconsin
Honorable Margaret A. Farrow
Wisconsin Senate
P.O. Box 7882, State Capitol
Madison, W1 53707-7882
(608) 266-1452
-------