Attitudes of
Denver Region Residents
on
Environmental
Issues
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
-------
ii
n
Attitudes of Denver Region Residents
on Environmental Issues
A Report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VIII
This report provides a summary of the views expressed
by Denver region residents in response to a program
of public information and involvement implemented by
EPA in connection with the publication of the draft
Denver Regional Environmental Impact Statement for
Wastewater Facilities and the Clean Water Program.
Prepared by
Gruen Gruen + Associates,
Economic and Sociological Consultants
In Cooperation with
Engineering-Science, Inc.
and
Region VIII, Environmental Protection Agency
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Highlights 1
Perceptions of Environmental Quality 3
Identification of Environmental Problems 4
Air Quality 4
Water Quality 4
Land Use 5
Other Environmental Issues 6
Attitudes Toward Environmental Action 7
General Approaches 7
Growth control 7
Environmental re-education of the public 9
Institutional change 10
Approaches to Specific Problems 10
Air quality 11
Water quality 13
Urban land use planning 15
Other environmental issues 17
EPA's Role in Regional and Local Clean Water Planning 18
The Need for EPA Funding 18
Objections to EPA Involvement 18
Environmental Impact Assessment 19
The Public Information/Involvement Program 20
Opportunity for citizen input 20
Content and presentation of public information materials 20
Outreach of public information program 21
APPENDIX
-------
INTRODUCTION AND HIGHLIGHTS
The Denver regional office of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency has undertaken a program of public information and public participation
in connection with the Agency's publication of an environmental impact state-
ment (May 27, 1977) on Denver regional wastewater facilities projects for which
federal grants are being sought.
This public participation program has included audio-visual presentations
to 20 public and civic groups, distribution of a pamphlet describing the pro-
posed projects and potential regional environmental effects, the publication
of a supplement to the Rocky Mountain News (July 6) and the Denver Post (July 10)
with content similar to the pamphlet, and a formal public hearing on the draft
environmental impact statement (July 18 and 19).
In addition to supplying information to the public, EPA has sought pub-
lic input in a variety of ways, including comment at the group meetings, state-
ments at the public hearing, written comments on the EIS, responses to a short
questionnaire supplied to those attending the 20 group meetings, and responses
to a short questionnaire which formed part of the newspaper supplements. Reference
to earlier opinion research in the Denver region was also made. The sources
referred to in the opinion review are described in an appendix to this report.
This report sets forth the major findings of the public information/par-
ticipation program. These findings focus on the views expressed as a result of
EPA's public participation program. However, EPA's findings were generally con-
sistent with the conclusions reported by other researchers. EPA's attitude ascer-
tainment focused on environmental issues to a greater extent than most of the
earlier surveys, and was as a result more fruitful in providing the Agency with
specific suggestions as to appropriate actions it might take in exercising its
responsibilities for environmental quality in the Denver region.
- 1 -
-------
Some highlights of the findings:
1. Air quality is perceived as the Denver region's most serious environmental
problem.
2. Air and water pollution, the loss of agricultural land, and waste of energy
resources are generally attributed to regional growth and to a regional land
use pattern characterized as "sprawl".
3. Significant institutional changes are thought necessary to correct these
problems. Consolidation of local service districts, improvements in land
use planning (strengthened zoning, state assumption of responsibility for
agricultural land preservation, more caution in extension of public services),
and greater regionalization of certain functions (including establishment of
regional service districts and regional tax base sharing) are widely seen
as promising approaches.
4. Federal funding from the Environmental Protection Agency is greatly needed for
water quality improvement; however, there is disagreement on whether federal
funds should be used to pay for wastewater system expansions to accommodate
growth.
5. Public ignorance and apathy about environmental problems is an obstacle to
the solution of those problems. The education of the public, and public
involvement in environmental decisions, is seen as critical to the success
of environmental improvement programs.
6. The environmental problems the Denver region faces are seen as interrelated,
and solutions to those problems will require a degree of coordination among
jurisdictions and levels of government beyond that now existing in the region.
- 2 -
-------
PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
A 1974 report on community attitudes found that about one-third of the
population found that life in the Denver region was improving, another one-
third found it holding steady, and the last third found it going downhill.
This division of opinion on the quality of life reflects the mixture of per-
sonal experience in the population, the optimism and the pessimism of regional
residents, their economic and personal circumstances as well as their attitudes
about the metropolitan environment. What may seem to be contradictory results -
for example, 12% of the respondents to the 1974 survey volunteered that clean
air was one of the most rewarding aspects of living in Denver, while 13% found
pollution to be one of the most frustrating aspects of living in Denver - simply
show the extent to which the same circumstances can be viewed differently by
different people.
EPA's request for public input on environmental management shows con-
siderably greater unanimity. The majority of those who responded to EPA's re-
quest for public input indicated shared beliefs that the region's environmental
problems are serious and that improvements in the way the region is handling
those problems are much needed. Of the 245 persons who attended the audio-
visual workshops presented by EPA, 76% believe that expenditures for environ-
mental programs should be increased, either by shifting expenditures from
other types of programs (55%) or by increasing taxes (21%).
The workship attendees also expressed doubt that existing environmental
programs in the region are up to the job. In six specific areas - air quality,
water quality, urban land use, recreation and open space, agricultural land
use and energy - existing programs were found wanting in five, and barely
passed muster in the sixth (recreation and open space). Those same six areas
pose very significant problems to the region in coming years in the opinion of
a majority of those responding to the newspaper supplement.
The level of environmental concern evidenced by those responding to EPA's
questionnaires probably is greater than that of the public as a whole. EPA's
workshop respondents themselves think so - while 88% of them reported that
they are very concerned or extremely concerned with environmental quality, they
think the public as a whole is only moderately concerned.
Of those who made written personal comments to EPA on the state of the
region's environment, most were not happy with the deteriorating conditions
they see taking place. Some express this view with great succinctness:
Metro Denver must clean up its act!
while others responded at greater length:
As a transplanted easterner, I have seen in the Denver area
the city blight which I left, growing. Native Denverites and
long-time residents have expressed their dismay that water,
air and even human behavior qualities have decreased alarm-
ingly in recent years, and I concur.
- 3 -
-------
Both EPA's research and investigation by other researchers identified
certain nonenvironmental problems as being of serious concern. Rising housing
costs, services to the elderly and crime were among these. But if we look
at the variety and extent of environmental concerns expressed by the region's
residents in all these studies, there appears to be a consensus that environ-
mental problems, taken collectively, constitute the major impediment to the
enjoyment of the good life in Denver.
IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Air Quality
Air quality is generally perceived as Denver's most severe environmental
problem. Air and water pollution were indicated as the major regional problems
in opinion surveys conducted by a Denver television station in the spring of
1973 and in the survey conducted in late 1973 for the United Bank of Denver.
The latter survey found that 47% of the sampled population believe air quality
to be a major problem facing the Denver region; younger respondents (25-34 years
old) were more likely than other age groups to hold this view, while members
of minority groups tended to find such problems as crime and the cost of living
more severe than environmental problems. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents
anticipated further deterioration in air quality over the succeeding five years.
The 1976 voter surveys also found air quality a major issue. The Denver
Urban Observatory survey found 81% of the electorate believe air pollution a
very serious (52%) or fairly serious (29%) problem; services for the elderly
was the only other issue of as great concern. The Denver Metropolitan Study
reported that a total of 57% of the voters find air pollution a very serious
problem, which was the highest level of concern reported for any problem.
These opinions of a random sample of residents/voters are supported in EPA's
workshop and newspaper questionnaires. Air quality was the topic on which work-
shop participants were most likely to express dissatisfaction with current environ-
ment programs, over 77% expressing that view. As far as the likely future effects
of regional growth are concerned, citizens responding to the newspaper question-
naire found air quality a very significant growth impact, over 87% expressing
that view, and about 40% found air quality the most important single impact of
growth.
Water Quality
The public as a whole, as based on the random surveys of residents and voters,
does not find water quality problems nearly as severe as air pollution. For
example, sewage disposal was felt to be a very serious problem by only 18% of
the respondents to the Denver Urban Observatory survey; water supply, on the other
hand, was mentioned by 2 7% as a serious problem. In the Denver Metropolitan
Study's survey (also 1976), the views reported were nearly parallel; on water
supply, 35% felt there is a serious problem, while sewage disposal was recognized
as a serious problem by 18% of the respondents.
In part this low level of problem recognition stems from the surveys' use
of the narrow term "sewage disposal" rather than the broader term, "water quality".
- 4 -
-------
However, even those closely involved in water quality planning have not found
attainment of clean water objectives as a high priority need. The participants
in DRCOG's water quality meetings in five basins generally split on this issue
with about a third finding clean water an issue of medium importance; about 31%
found it of high importance and 37% of low importance.
Of the six major areas of environmental concern covered in EPA's newspaper
questionnaire, water quality was considered the most important impact of growth
by about 21% of the respondents. Water quality ranked second on this measure,
well below the 39% who felt air quality would be the most serious impact of growth.
Just over half of the workshop participants expressed strong dissatisfaction
with water quality programs in the Denver region. However, some of the problems
ranking lower in the scale of importance (energy and land use) prompted a higher
proportion of responses of dissatisfaction with current programs. This means
that while water quality may be seen as a serious problem by a significant pro- •
portion of the public, other functional areas appear to the public to be less
effectively addressed by current programs.
Land Use
Land use is the physical disposition of human activity. Land use decisions
may relate to the type of use (residential, commercial, recreational, and so forth),
the scale of the use (size and number of structures or operations) and how one
use relates to other uses. In its most general definition, land use includes both
open space and built space, and it includes transportation facilities as well as
all the kinds of uses which would be destination points.
In the 1976 surveys of random samples of voters and residents, respondents
were given a list of areas of government activity, and were asked to indicate
which areas posed very serious problems; multiple answers were accepted. These
"problem lists" included both planning and zoning with about one-fourth of the
respondents selecting urban planning and one-fifth mentioning zoning. (These
percentages cannot be added together because the respondents could select as many
problem areas as they thought appropriate.)
The 1974 report by Bickert reports that a 1973 Junior League survey yielded
similar results: about one-fifth of 111 local community leaders in the Denver
region considered land use and zoning to be among the major problems facing the
region.
EPA's survey responses broke land use into two categories, urban and agricul-
tural. Dissatisfaction with urban land use programs in the region was higher (64%)
than with agricultural (54%); both of these were higher than dissatisfaction with
water quality programs (51%). Urban land use planning was considered by 20% of
the newspaper questionnaire respondents to be the most important problem area
faced by a growing Denver region, just slightly less than the 21% who found water
quality the most important.
The EPA questionnaires did not list transportation separately from land use
as a potential problem area. In the earlier opinion surveys, transportation had
- 5 -
-------
been mentioned by a large majority of the respondents as an area posing serious
problems: 58% in the 1973 Junior League surveys, over 60% in one of the 1976
surveys. (The other 1976 survey offered as separate items on the problem list
parking and traffic, 36%; public transportation, 27%; and streets and roads, 23%.)
EPA's respondents, in their comments, frequently called attention to the
relationship between transportation and environmental conditions. Most of the
comments respondents made on the subject of transportation were in the context
of air quality, with improvement of rapid transit and curtailment of auto use
recurring recommendations. Many of the comments offered at the workshops and on
their EPA questionnaires suggest that respondents considered the term "land use"
to include transportation. For example:
We need better land use planning, particularly in relation
to density, air quality and transportation.
The issue of agricultural land use was less stressed by EPA's respondents
than the issue of urban land use, with less than 5% seeing the former as the most
important problem facing the growing Denver region. Neither agricultural land
nor open space in general had been included on the "problem lists" of the 1976
surveys.
Other Environmental Issues
The 1976 opinion surveys asked for respondents' evaluations of two other
environmental problem areas, and the proportions identifying those problems as
"serious" were about the same in the two surveys: solid waste disposal, 16% and
17%; recreational programs and parks, 9% and 17%. Animal control is not wholly
a matter of environmental concern, although animal waste is one factor in nonpoint
source water pollution. Interestingly, animal control was considered a serious
problem by 74% of the respondents in one of the 1976 surveys.
The EPA questionnaire solicited views on two other specified environmental
issues, energy and recreation/open space. Neither of these areas received many
mentions as the most important problem facing the Denver region in the future,
although over 80% felt energy to be a very significant problem. Only half thought
recreation/open space very significant; that was the lowest percentage of the
problem areas listed.
In soliciting comments, EPA also offered respondents the opportunity to
indicate other areas of environmental concern which had not been specifically
listed on the questionnaire. While most of the comments, both on the workshop
questionnaire and on the newspaper questionnaire, focused on the issues already
discussed, other issues were also identified. There were many comments on the need
for improved public information and education on environmental problems. Research
on environmental problems was also advocated, as well as training in environmental
administration and management. Other environment problems mentioned by three or
more respondents were: water runoff (including drainage and flood control);
water supply, conservation and reuse; noise; solid waste; and wildlife protection.
- 6 -
-------
ATTITUDES TOWARD ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
Widespread agreement that Denver faces serious environmental problems
and consensus as to what those problems are does not mean agreement on solu-
tions to them, or even on the most promising approaches.
In this section, we shall consider first some of the more general
recommendations for addressing Denver's environmental problems; we then will
turn to approaches proposed for specific problems and attitudes on where
responsibility for implementing change should lie.
General Approaches
Several recurring themes in the response to the regional EIS and the
public information program could be characterized as "global"; that is,
they do not relate to specific problems and they would require uncommon
accord on objectives and significant coordination of implementation acti-
vity. Global approaches are of three main types: (1) growth control;
(2) reform in human thinking and behavior with regard to the environment
and (3) major institutional change.
Growth control. Growth control was the approach to regional environ-
mental problems most frequently mentioned by EPA's respondents, with an
overwhelming majority of affirmative comments and a much smaller number of
negative comments.
At its most "global" range, the growth control approach was defined
as birth control leading to zero population growth:
The only pollution problem is people pollution - start working
on ways to motivate people to not have children.
On a regional level, this approach was typically described as establish-
ing a maximum environmentally-sound population level for the front range and
turning away excess in-migrants. One respondent suggested that distributing
EPA's newspaper supplement in other regions should be considered as a way of
discouraging new settlers; others argued for cessation of activities by pub-
lic and private groups which encourage industry and people to relocate in
Colorado.
While most of the suggestions concentrated on limiting new residents
directly, some focused on halting the expansion of employment as the key to
limiting future population. For example:
If limits were placed on the amount of new industry in the
area, the regional growth problem would be solved. People
don't come to an area where they can't find a job.
- 7 -
-------
The range of opinion on growth management is broad. There are those
who are altogether opposed to this approach and they offer reasons for their
views based on law, equity and impracticability:
Growth is beyond regional control efforts due to legal
implications.
It is unfair to long-time owners of land to forbid them profit
by removing their land from the market.
We can't build a fence around Colorado; I cannot bar others
from a state where I have lived for not quite a decade.
Others endorse a growth management policy which, however, falls short
of stopping growth:
I don't want to see a no-growth policy. I would, however,
like to see sensibly planned, limited growth at a rate
where the highest environmental and life quality standards
can be achieved.
The approach some advocate is to establish an environmental carrying
capacity and accept no new residents beyond that level. A moratorium on
growth was suggested by many respondents until a decision is made as to a
desirable population level:
An attempt should be made to limit the growth of the area
while problems are worked out. Then determine at what
rate the area should grow if the public decides growth is
required.
The best immediate policy is further study.
Finally, at the extreme, there are those who would like to reverse
recent growth:
If the EPA would do its job, they would put a complete stop
to any further urban growth...if EPA has the authority, they
should require anybody who has moved into this area, or
state, within the last 15 years to get out.
The means of stopping or controlling growth suggested by respondents
were quite varied. Aside from miraculous intervention by EPA (the means
suggested in the preceding comment) the proposals were practically oriented
to facilities expansion policies and urban planning and zoning:
Limit the population increase via reducing housing permits,
water and gas taps.
Hopefully state and local government will limit growth by
restricting building permits, water taps, new highways, etc.
- 8 -
-------
Limiting wastewater treatment facilities is one way to
limit growth; this action must include limitation on sewer
pipes laid.
The establishment of regional land use planning policies is
a practical solution to some of the problems we face in the
Denver metro area.
Proper land use planning and standardized regional controls
would go a long way towards holding potential problems to a
minimum.
But others see problems in using facilities policies to control growth -
they think such an approach may be more costly to the public in the long run:
We can't decide to limit growth simply by not supplying treat-
ment facilities that we know we're going to need anyhow.
I would not favor failing to build adequate wastewater facil-
ities now while cost and time are on our side.
Of those responding to EPA's newspaper questionnaire, a majority (55%)
accepted the concept of facilitating growth by supplying wastewater treat-
ment facilities to outlying areas. But, 45% found that policy unacceptable.
Judging from EPA's respondents - who, of course, were not a random sample -
there is no regional consensus on this issue.
Environmental re-education of the public. Of those who commented on
public attitudes toward the environment, many pointed out the efforts they
themselves make to conserve water, limit automobile use and otherwise mini-
mize their own impact on the environment; however, they tended to view
others' attitudes and behavior as needing change.
I am interested in getting Americans to change their energy-
wasting behavior.
There should be permanent and large (federal) funding for a
permanent nationwide campaign for public education on these
issues.
A great many respondents pointed to the need for educating the public
on environmental issues and many complimented EPA on undertaking a public
information program so extensive. A comparable level of concern for public
involvement and awareness was found in DRCOG's water quality workshops,
where participants overwhelmingly (84%) agreed that a lack of information
and awareness on the public's part is a major difficulty in achieving the
goals of the Clear Water Program.
However, many respondents seemed discouraged by public apathy and
ignorance:
Regional government and mass transit certainly seem reason-
able, if not imperative, but Denver residents seem to have
little interest in either.
- 9 -
-------
We have to educate and change attitudes to such an extent
that I fear only a dictatorship could succeed in getting
people to change certain wasteful and extravagent life-
styles.
Opinion appeared to be about evenly divided between those who held hope
for change in the direction of more environmental concern and those who are
very discouraged:
I don't see much hope for Denver or the state. This bro-
chure has further convinced me to get out as soon as I can.
Institutional change. The endorsement of significant change in regional
organization, but which would fall short of the establishment of a regional
government, was the most typical view of EPA's respondents. The consolidation
of service districts into a single metropolitan service district, or several
such districts with separate functional responsibilities; the establishment of
a regional authority for land use planning; and the establishment of regional
tax base sharing were some of the intermediate steps recommended by the respon-
dents. The extreme views were advocacy of regional government at one pole, and
strenuous objection to regional government at the other:
We have long been aware that multiple jurisdictions are com-
pounding our problems . . . people are fearful that giving up
any aspect of local control means giving up all aspects.
People need to know that regional government need not add
to the complexity of government, but can simplify it.
The suggested "regional government" would continue to
remove from the people local decision making and control.
There are already too many bureaucrats.
And, as in the case of the environmental attitudes of the public, we
find here too considerable doubt that change can be accomplished:
Metropolitan government is probably not a valid idea at this time.
What can be done about the shortsighted self-interested legis-
lature?
Comprehensive planning is the answer, but it will not pro-
ceed due to the multi-layers of state, federal and local
bureaucracies . . . {which} will engage in their typical
contest and we all will suffer. You know this, so why offer
the illusion that the citizen's voice will be heard?
Approaches to Specific Problems
EPA's workshop questionnaire asked respondents to consider both the dis-
tribution of expenditures among various types of environmental programs and
the level of government - federal, state, regional or local - most appro-
priately responsible for action in each area. In general, the respondents
- 10 -
-------
divided their hypothetical environmental budgets about equally among the
six areas specified, although air quality received a slightly higher allo-
cation than the other areas.
In two cases, there was general agreement as to which level of govern-
ment should take responsibility: the federal government for energy and the
state government for agricultural land use. In the other four areas, there
was no consensus, as the following percentage distribution of responses shows:
r _ Level of Government
Area of Environ-
mental Concern
Federal
State
Regional
Local
Air Quality
25%
34%
37%
4%
Water Quality
21%
39%
34%
6%
Urban Land Use
1%
23%
37%
39%
Recreation/Open Space
3%
25%
39%
33%
In the cases of air and water quality, support is about evenly divided
between those who see planning responsibility most appropriately lodged with
the state and those who see it at the regional level; the federal government
is a distant third, while the local role is considered negligible.
Urban land use is the only area in which local government gets the nod,
but regional responsibility was advocated by almost as many respondents.
The state ran a poor third with the federal role negligible. Recreation/
open space was seen as a regional responsibility, with local government
trailing by 6% and the state a distant third. Again, few respondents saw a
strong federal role in this area.
Air quality. This problem, the most serious environmental concern of
Denver region residents, was addressed by many respondents to EPA's workshop
and newspaper questionnaires. Their suggestions were generally along the
same lines as those raised by respondents to the 1974 Bickert survey, which
identified four major obstacles to solving the problem of pollution: exces-
sive traffic, uncooperative industry, uncooperative citizens and weak local
government.
The range of views on how to achieve air quality improvement is narrower
than with other issues, as there is general agreement that more effective
measures are needed. EPA respondents, like those in the 1974 survey, were
most likely to suggest solutions involving expansion of mass transit oppor-
tunities and stricter enforcement of existing pollution regulations.
I am in favor of cracking down hard to require municipalities
to conform to rigid, high standards. . .
When asked whether there were other programs on which major expenditures
from a hypothetical environmental budget should be made, the transit system
led all other suggestions five to one. Extended and more frequent RTD service
- 11 -
-------
was a typical recommendation. However, some respondents recognized the dif-
ficulty of providing rapid transit efficiently to a dispersed land use pat-
tern. Reduction of sprawl (as distinct from growth) and encouragement of
more concentrated development forms - more development at higher density in
downtown Denver and clustered development elsewhere - were also suggested:
With better land use planning, we could use more high density
clusters in planned unit developments and design away from
the need for so much reliance on personal automobiles.
We are five miles from church, 3h miles from the nearest food
store and eight miles from the post office that serves us.
Next to Los Angeles, this is the most auto-dependent popula-
tion we have lived among.
Many respondents are prepared to impose more rigorous air quality con-
trols and would accept an expanded federal role in air quality maintenance:
Why couldn't an emissions test be required as part of the
annual vehicle inspection system? Standards would be set
according to the year of the car and those not passing would
not get a sticker. Perhaps federal funds could be used to
equip inspection stations with testing equipment.
Use of the automobile should be severely restricted by law.
After the screaming public outrage, people would adjust and
would find alternate, healthier methods of transportation.
We sorely lack the necessary restrictions and leadership we
need from the federal government to clean up the air.
Others deplore past inconsistency in the federal air quality record and
apparent lack of commitment to making regulations stick:
What can be done about air pollution when federal congressmen
and women continue to grant the auto industry extensions on
emission standards?
The government is much too lax in enforcing clean air and
water standards and too easily intimidated by the automotive
industry and leading manufacturers.
One government agency tells us car emissions are creating
excess ozone, while another tells us planes and hairspray
are destroying ozone! One government agency tells us
carbon dioxide is a problem, while everyone knows that vege-
tation converts carbon dioxide into oxygen.
- 12 -
-------
And there is a minority who object to EPA's intervention in air quality
matters:
I think that EPA's emission control program favors the wealthy
who can afford new cars and is unjust.
The involvement of EPA is not needed beyond the setting of
national policy.
In summary, the EPA respondents - not a random sample of the popula-
tion - recommended a package of approaches to (1) increase opportunities for
use of rapid transit systems, (2) take rapid transit service and reduced
auto dependence into consideration in making land use decisions and (3) step
up enforcement of clear air requirements, including vehicle emission controls.
Water Quality. Readers of the EIS, workshop participants and public
hearing attendees seemed well aware that the projects proposed for EPA funding
in the Denver region would include expenditures for accommodation of projected
growth as well as for upgrading of effluent treatment. As discussed above, a
slight majority accept a policy of accommodating growth through planned facility
expansion. However, many did object to what they see as EPA subsidization
of growth:
I am strongly against EPA spending 50% of this water money for
growth! The money should be spent for improving water quality.
I would fully support an EPA decision that would limit waste-
water treatment plant size in the metro area. I think we
should concentrate on upgrading and maintaining the quality
of what we already have instead. . .
Although EPA does not have power to stop growth, it has
power to stop subsidizing growth. EPA should fund projects to
meet water quality goals for existing populations. It should
not subsidize future growth through construction grants for
growth.
Others felt EPA's most promising approach would be a contingent approval
of proposed projects:
I believe EPA should give conditional approval of the eight
facilities plans and the overall clean water plan based on
the solution of certain issues. That would direct govern-
mental attention to those issues.
We expect Uncle Sam to pick up more and more of the tab.
Perhaps Uncle ought to set some standards of reasonableness
before he pays the bill.
Public subsidy should not go to those who don't control
public impacts.
- 13 -
-------
With regard to point source control, there appeared to be a consensus
that enforcement of standards and federal expenditures to improve treatment
facilities are sorely needed. Indeed, this opinion was nearly unanimous,
the few dissidents simply giving more stress to the need for money and less
stress to EPA as an enforcement agency.
A number of other water quality issues were addressed in respondents'
comments, with a much less focused content. There appears to be a dawning
recognition on the part of the public, as well as those directly involved
in water quality planning, of the magnitude of the nonpoint source pollution
problem. Among the nonpoint controls suggested by the respondents were:
. animal waste controls, both for pets and for livestock
. improved collection of storm water runoff through
separated public sewer systems
. street cleaning
. banning detergents; banning use of toxic substances by
agriculture
. incentives to developers to incorporate runoff control
into site planning.(For example, one respondent suggested
that all new development be required to have on-site de-
tention of storm water runoff for the two-year storm and
that erosion control measures should be a precondition to
the issuance of building permits.)
Considering the magnitude of water quality problems and the dispersed
sources of those problems, some observers felt that surface water quality
standards may be unrealistic:
It is gratifying to see a realization in the EIS that non-
point sources of pollution rather than point sources are
the real problem in attempting to achieve the 1983 goals
of fishable and swimmable waters, and also that the cost
of both point source and nonpoint source treatment would
be much out of proportion to the minor improvements in
water quality which could be expected from such treatment.
Must all streams be drinkable and fishable? Couldn't some
be designated for agricultural use since they are so full
of nutrients?
Too much concern over the ability of streams running through
Denver to support high quality fishing, swimming, etc. Fish-
ing can be done in the mountains and swimming in swimming
pools. You are beating this issue to death.
- 14 -
-------
Raising fish in the lower South Platte should not be one of
our objectives, nor should we ever try to swim in it.
Those with reservations about surface water quality standards seemed to
be in the majority among those EPA respondents who addressed this issue
directly; but there were also many who were highly critical of current water
quality and strongly advocated improvement:
I think water and wastewater and fishing and swimming water
should be upgraded constantly.
A great many respondents made a connection between improvements in waste-
water treatment processes and the water supply problems the region is facing.
The recommendation of exploring water reuse was one of the most frequent com-
ments. Use of recycled water was advocated for ground water recharge, for
industrial processing, for irrigation of agricultural lands and for other uses.
Structural changes, such as the development of a dual water system, were
suggested; comments indicated that some regional residents are already imple-
menting such a system on a household basis:
My family is doing everything possible to conserve. . .
Every drop of wash water is recycled for garden and lawn use,
to wash floors, cars, etc.
In summary, EPA's respondents generally support federal funding of clean
water facilities, are open to a variety of measures to control nonpoint source
pollution, advocate improvements in water conservation and increased reuse of
treated wastewater; however, opinion is divided on EPA's role in specific local
enforcement (especially of nonpoint source pollution) and in the funding of
growth-related facilities.
Urban Land Use Planning. Of the six major areas of environmental concern
described in the EPA questionnaires, this was the only area in which the most
respondents saw primary responsibility as lying with local government. How-
ever, there was recognition that actions of the federal government significantly
affect land use patterns, and respondents made specific mention'of this fact,
particularly with regard to waste treatment facilities which, in size and layout
of collection systems, are a key influence on the pattern of growth which
develops.
Furthermore, respondents recognized the "interrelatedness" of the areas
of environmental concern:
The entire list of subjects is so interwoven that they
must form part of an overall plan for the Denver metro
area . . .
I'd like to know if there's a section in EPA that is
involved in educating the public to the interconnected-
ness of these environmental issues.
- 15 -
-------
Thus, a number of recommendations as to how to deal with specific air and
water pollution problems included land development controls. Several of these
have already been mentioned: clustering development to reduce automobile de-
pendence, imposing development controls to minimize runoff, revitalizing down-
town areas where public services already are available, and so forth:
EPA should offer incentives to avoid sprawl development.
It should provide penalties (such as stricter discharge
standards) for low density development.
Control of sprawl was a recurring theme in the comments:
In no way should regional development be permitted to
take the form of the careless uncontrolled growth of
the last 10 years. Driving through southeast Denver
is one of the most depressing experiences next to looking
at the Climax Mine.
Many respondents seemed to equate sprawl with growth and are directing
toward growth their negative feelings about sprawl; one respondent aware of
this confusion offered the comment:
Urban growth and urban sprawl are two different things!
Some respondents attributed to government action and inaction the kind of
sprawled growth Denver has experienced: laxity of zoning; failure to retain
agricultural land use in its own designated zoning category; road, water and
sewer system extensions; and other governmental decisions were cited as con-
tributing to sprawl. Rezoning was a common suggestion as to how to control
sprawl through legal means. Interestingly, most of the comments suggested a
strong role for regional and state agencies in land use planning, even though
the preponderance of responses to the question of where responsibility should
lie was the local government. Sometimes individual respondents themselves were
undecided or inconsistent with regard to where responsibility for planning
should lie:
Local government should do wastewater facilities planning,
with less control by federal and state agencies. Regional
growth should be controlled by state land use laws if needed
in some areas.
Others think the private sector can do a better job at land use planning
than can government:
Banks and appraisers are more astute and knowledgeable of
land use and the risks of land investment and development
than the public and politicians . . . land use legislation
is unnecessary and costly to the public.
But this was a minority view.
In summary, the relationship between land use and the environment is in-
creasingly recognized. EPA's respondents tend to see growth and sprawl as
- 16 -
-------
synonymous, but that is a reflection of their own observation in the Denver
region. The lack of confidence in local and regional government's ability
and commitment to control sprawl and its environmental consequences is one
factor in the anti-growth views of many of the respondents.
Other Environmental Issues. The three other issues mentioned specifically
in the liPA questionnaires were agricultural land use, energy conservation and
development, and recreation/open space. These issues prompted far fewer re-
sponses than the issues discussed separately above.
Comments on energy and agricultural land use were quite close in tone and
content; what concerns the respondents is that we not waste resources we may
need in the future. Thus, minimizing needless automobile trips and arranging
living and working places so as to reduce automobile dependence were seen by
many as strategies for energy conservation. These strategies - and the energy
conservation objective to which they would contribute - received general en-
dorsement.
Agricultural land preservation was advocated, not for its open space value,
but to avoid depletion of valuable food-producing resources. However, while
energy resources were generally thought by EPA respondents to be in short supply,
that evaluation did not apply to agricultural resources. Respondents advocating
agricultural land preservation make their argument on the basis of potential
future need, recognizing that the need for the resource is less than the present
supply. But retention of options for future food production is what they advo-
cate. A small minority argue against that position, stating bluntly that we
have an agricultural surplus and that the land uses which replace agriculture
in the course of urbanization create more economic opportunities and contribute
more to regional income than agriculture does. Still, the clear majority of
EPA's commentators were on the side of agricultural land preservation.
Finally, recreation/open space was not a subject prompting much comment.
Those who did mention it agreed that recreational facilities should keep pace
with population growth. A small number of respondents expressed concern at the
location of open space within the Denver region, finding that open areas are too
remote from their homes to be of value to them. No role for EPA in this area
was suggested by any respondents.
One issue which did not appear on the issues list in the EPA questionnaires,
but which was the focus of numerous comments, was water supply. As has been
mentioned, consideration of the water shortage was one factor behind the wide-
spread advocacy of recycling and reuse of wastewater. Another suggestion as to
how EPA might act in accord with water supply considerations is to tie water
conservation requirements to wastewater facilities grants.
Besides conservation, respondents offered few ideas as to how to alleviate
the water shortage:
New technology may solve the energy problem, but I've
yet to see a nuclear, wind or solar-powered water maker.
- 17 -
-------
Additional diversions of water from the western slope are advocated by
some respondents. A few respondents expressed the view that EPA is attempting
to inhibit action to increase the region's water supply, and much of the ex-
pressed hostility to EPA's Denver activities appear to stem from perceptions
that EPA is obstructing growth-accommodating actions which regional residents
are thought to want.
The present water situation in Denver points to the fact
that we are already behind. Now that anyone can stop a
water project, just because they don't like it, we are
in for serious problems. EPA should not be in the very
time-consuming business of saying yes or no to plans for
future preparedness.
EPA'S ROLE IN REGIONAL AND LOCAL CLEAN WATER PLANNING
The use of federal funds for clean water planning and facilities construc-
tion activates the requirement for environmental impact assessment under the pro-
visions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, including the prepara-
tion of an environmental impact statement, public review of that statement and
the holding of a public hearing prior to EPA's taking action. Public review, in
this case, was characterized by wider than typical participation due to EPA's
having implemented an extensive public information/involvement program. The
comments evoked, both by the EIS and the public information/involvement program,
did not focus solely on the environmental impacts of actions described in the
document, but reacted as well to the public information/participation program
itself.
In this section, reactions of the public to EPA and its role in clean water
planning are reviewed and citizens' views about the accuracy and usefulness of
the environmental assessment and the means chosen to bring issues to the atten-
tion of the public are discussed.
The Need for EPA Funding
There is general recognition that the costs of providing needed clean water
facilities are beyond the financial capabilities of local governments and service
districts. Only a handful of those who commented to EPA recommended that the
agency not fund proposed wastewater treatment projects, although some suggested
that only the water quality improvement portions of projects be federally-funded
(with the growth accommodation portions to be funded locally). The general view
is that denial of funds due to projected environmental impacts or anticipated
failure in achieving clean water objectives is short-sighted because water qual-
ity will continue to deteriorate in the absence of upgraded facilities.
Objections to EPA Involvement
Objections to EPA's actions in the region stem primarily from concern about
the delays EPA is thought to cause in the implementation of needed programs. A
number of respondents voiced the view that less study and more prompt action are
needed:
- 18 -
-------
Would EPA please reduce its legal staff and get some workers
in to do the cleaning of our water.
A million hearings could be held and a billion questionnaires
constructed, but what actions are ever taken in the present?
A handful of those who commented on the newspaper supplement were very
negative about EPA, indicating profound lack of confidence in the agency:
I have done my own economic and environmental impact study
of the problems and have identified significant point source
of continuing harassment and ineptness in EPA.
The entire concept of EPA planning anything for me chills me.
We cannot trust EPA to dictate to us!
Others recommended that EPA simply provide the funds, and leave planning
and implementation totally in local and regional hands. At least one person
attributed his low confidence in EPA to disillusionment with the work of other
federal agencies over time:
After watching the "clowns' dens" (Bureau of Land Management,
Army Corps of Engineers, Republicans, Democrats, etc.) for
over 40 years, I do not hold much hope for your ideas, but
who knows?
Environmental Impact Assessment
Most of the public comments - both on the EIS and on the materials used to
publicize the EIS (the pamphlet, the slide show and the newspaper supplement) -
were affirmative:
May I say that this statement presented me with a detailed
examination of the problems facing the Denver area recently
unavailable from any other source.
There were a number of criticisms of the EIS both in terms of content and
focus. These criticisms will be taken into account in the preparation of the
final EIS and will not be reviewed here. The most common of these was that the
EIS is a negative document, pointing out accurately the environmental problems
the region faces without adequately identifying solutions. Still, simply asking
the right questions was considered valuable:
Your draft summary is informative, yet negative. Keep asking
the right questions!
Some individuals questioned the need for environmental impact assessment:
Environmental impact statements require ridiculous red tape
and paperwork.
- 19 -
-------
Spending years evaluating projects increases their costs
in both dollars and social suffering.
The Public Information/Involvement Program
The overwhelming majority of comments on EPA's public information/partici-
pation program were affirmative. The program itself was one of the major sub-
jects of comment by respondents. Their comments tended to focus on three areas:
the opportunity for citizen input the program provided, the coverage and pre-
sentation of public information materials, and the distribution of those materials.
Opportunity for citizen input. The general view was appreciative. A good
many respondents expressed their reaction with such terms as "thankful", "grate-
ful", "thrilled", and, in one case, "bravo!". While some registered opposition
to the use of tax dollars for the newspaper supplement, such negatives were
definitely a minority, and a number of respondents indicated their pleasure at
seeing tax dollars spent for the supplement:
Thanks for spending some of our tax dollars on this type
of advertising.
Content and presentation of public information materials. Again, most of
the respondents praised the materials (the newspaper supplement in particular).
The majority felt the supplement a good approach to informing the public. Typical
comments were "valuable", "informative", "excellent", "superb" and "effective".
There were, however, a significant number of reservations. While some
readers found the material "thorough, concise and well written", others held
opposing views:
The idea of the insert is excellent. However, you must
remember most of us are not very educated to the problems.
Write more simply and in plain, interesting language. The
pamphlet is much too long and much too dull. Keep the
pamphlets coming, though.
The supplement is a great idea; the material in it is
bogged down by too much verbage and too much jargon.
On the other hand, some recognized that complicated issues demand some
effort by citizens to educate themselves. The following pair of comments define
the opinion range on this point:
I doubt if this supplement could be read by one of ten
newspaper readers.
The issues were summarized clearly, sufficiently short
for most people to read, I hope. If not, forget trying
to make sense out of public decisions.
With regard to content, there were few charges of bias. Some said they
felt EPA was "looking for answers to support your recommendations" which in fact
- 20 -
-------
was a major reason for the public information program. The suspicion of bias
("1 can't figure out what kind of information you expect to get") was more common
than the specification of actual instances of bias, though several did characterize
the materials as "one-sided" and "anti-growth". But the more common view was
that the public information handouts were "comprehensive and fair".
Outreach of the public information program. Many respondents commented on
the need for on-going public information efforts similar to what EPA has imple-
mented in this case. Such efforts should, in the view of some, have a broader
outreach than just the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News:
Publications such as this should be more widely distributed.
I found it only by chance. I think local and state officials
should be required to solicit public input through the media
with means such as the newspaper publication. Federal offi-
cials should also utilize it more.
EPA purpose, goals and funding decisions should be circulated
to local newspapers instead of only the Denver Post and Rocky
Mountain News. Articles of major importance tend to get lost
in the latter papers.
In addition to wider circulation, respondents advocated more frequent oppor-
tunities to become informed and to make their views known.
The supplement was an excellent production to alert average
citizens to issues and summarize alternatives. This should
be done periodically as major decision points are reached,
even though there is some cost to taxpayers.
Information such as this material should be presented to the
public more frequently.
- 21 -
-------
APPENDIX
DENVER CITIZEN ATTITUDES ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: SOURCES
REGIONAL ATTITUDE SURVEYS
A number of regional attitude surveys have been conducted in recent years
and made available to EPA.
Bickert, Browne, Coddington & Associates completed a
survey for the United Bank of Denver in 1974. Personal
interviews were conducted with 517 randomly selected resi-
dents of the five county region between October 17 and
November 9, 1973.
A September, 1976 report by the Denver Metropolitan
Study, National Academy of Public Administration, presents
findings of a survey of a random sample of 627 voters in
Denver, Adams, Arapahoe and Jefferson Counties.
A 1976 report of the Denver Urban Observatory (Warren
Weston jet a^.) presents findings of a survey of 1090 ran-
domly selected voters in the region.
An April, 1976 report to the Denver Regional Council
of Governments by The Research Group, Inc. presents an
assessment of areawide water pollution management issues,
attitudes of public officials and alternative approaches
to water quality planning and management. The attitude
data is based on personal interviews with 40-50 public
officials in the region.
WORKSHOPS
EPA made presentations in a workshop format to about 20 public and civic
organizations in the Denver region (a list of EPA workshops appears at the end
of this appendix). The workshops, which took up a half hour to an hour
of the scheduled meeting time of each group, consisted of a slide presentation
of about 20 minutes with taped commentary, a brief presentation by an EPA
representative of the issues involved in the region's future water quality de-
cisions, and an opportunity for the participants both to make oral comments and
to respond to a two-page questionnaire (the "workshop questionnaire"). Responses
were tabulated from 245 workship questionnaires.
In the fall of 1976, the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)
held a series of five public meetings on the Clean Water Program. Attendance
totaled about 110 persons, of whom about 10% were elected and 30% appointed
officials. A questionnaire was distributed eliciting views on water quality
management issues; findings were summarized by DRCOG in an undated report titled
"Results of Public Meetings in Five Basins".
- 22 -
-------
NEWSPAPER SUPPLEMENT
The Denver Post (July 10) and the Rocky Mountain News (July 6) carried
supplements in which the environmental issues discussed in the draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement were identified, and the actions under consideration
by EPA reviewed. The supplement included a five-question survey (the "news-
paper questionnaire") to facilitate the reader's response to EPA's solicita-
tion of public input. About 250 questionnaires were returned to EPA.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
A public hearing on the draft EIS was held on July 18 and 19, 1977 and
was attended by about 200 persons. Written and oral testimony were presented
to a hearing officer. Attendees received copies of EPA's workshop question-
naire, and their responses were tabulated with those of workshop participants.
DENVER EIS WORKSHOPS
Local Public Agencies
Boulder County Planning Commission July 20
City of Broomfield Planning Office July 21
City & County of Denver Planning Office July 13
City & County of Denver Wastewater Control Division July 14
Denver Water Board Planning & Water Resources Division July 26
Jefferson County, Environmental Health July 19
City of Lakewood Planning Division July 13
South Adams Water & Sanitation District July 26
Regional Agencies
DRCOG Citizen Advisory Committee
DRCOG Program Committee
DRCOG Regional Planning Advisory Committee
DRCOG Water Quality Management Task Force
DRCOG Water Resources Advisory Committee
Regional Transportation District
July 7
July 6
July 8
July 20
July 15
July 29
Other Public Agencies
State of Colorado, Governor's Policy Coordinating
Committee, Staff Working Group
U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Mid-continent
Regional Office
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Missouri Region
Civic Groups
Arvada Optimist Club
Brighton Rotary Club
Denver Metropolitan League of Women Voters, Natural
Resources Committee
June 27
July 21
July 18
July 27
July 25
June 24
- 23 -
-------
PARTICIPATING STAFF
Gruen Gruen + Associates
Roberta Mundie, AIP, Project Director
Bruce Bernhard
Trish Bristol
Margie Gurdziel
Engineering-Science, Inc.
Phillip J. Morris, Project Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
J. Robert Doyle, Project Officer
- 24 -
------- |