[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
EPA-600/5-73-016 February 1974 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series Coastal Zone Information Center COASTAL ZONE JAN 24, 1974 INFORMATION CENTER Environmental Management and Local Government Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad categories were established to facilitate further development and appli- cation of environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum inter- face in related fields. The five series are: 1. Environmental Health Effects Research 2. Environmental Protection Technology 3. Ecological Research 4. Environmental Monitoring 5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES series. This series includes research on environmental management, compre- hen'sive planning and forecasting and analysis methodologies. Included are tools for determining varying impacts of alternative policies, analyses of environmental planning techniques at the regional, state and local levels, and approaches to measuring environmental quality perceptions. Such topics as urban form, industrial mix, growth policies, control and organizational structure are discussed in terms of optimal environmental performance. These interdisciplinary studies and systems analyses are presented in forms varying from quantitative relational analyses to management and policy- oriented reports. EPA REVIEW NOTICE This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development, EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 03535 EPA-600/5-73-016 February 1974 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 By Steve Carter Murray Frost Claire Rubin Lyle Sumek Grant No. R-801374 Program Element lHAO97 Project Officer Alan Neuschatz Washing ental Research Center D. C. 20460 HC 110 .E5 E4986 1974 For Office OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 property of CSC Library For sale by the Superintendent of Doucments, U.S. Printing Office, Washington D.C. 20402-Price $3.80 ABSTRACT This report presents the results of a study of environmental management and local government. The study has two main components: (1) a survey of chief executives in cities over 10,000 population and counties over 50,000; and, (2) a series of field studies of local environmental management in Dallas, Texas; Inglewood, California; Miamisburg, Ohio; and the Piedmont Triad Region (Forsyth and Guilford Counties), North Carolina. The major topics covered in the study include: perception of the definition of environment, priority of environment as a local policy issue, and types of environmental problems facing each local govern- ment; adoption of local policy statement on the environment; existence of citizen environmental boards, environmental agencies, environmental sections in master plans, land use controls, other environmental con- trols, moratoria, environmental quality standards, environmental impact assessment procedures, environmental law suits, tax incentives and penalty charges; factors contributing to and factors creating obstacles to development of environmental programs; and, relations with state and federal agencies. This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number R-801324 by the International City Management Association under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency. Work was completed in July, 1973. CONTENTS Page Abstract List of Tables v Acknowledgements xi Sections I Conclusions I 11 Survey of Local Environmental Management A. Local Environmental Management: Forecast 11 For Change B. Survey of Local Environmental Management 20 C. Environment as a Policy Issue 23 D. Organizational Aspects of Environmental Management 30 E. Utilization of Environmental Management Strategies 38 F. Evaluation of Environmental Management Strategies 55 G. Factors Contributing to Development of Environmental Management Programs 67 H. intergovernmental Relations 70 1. Problems in Environmental Management 78 J. Appendices 1. Environmental Management and Local Government Questionnaire - 1973 83 2. Survey Tables 91 3. Recipients of Federal Part of Survey 217 iii Page Field Studies in Local Environmental Management A. Field Studies in Local Environmental Management 218 B. Local Organization for Environmental Management 224 C. Strategies for Environmental Management 247 D. Appendices 1. Critical Variables and'Related Research Questions 263 2. Report on the Field Trip to Dallas, Texas 267 Addendum a. Ordinance No. 13113 290 Addendum b. Ordinance No. 13489 291 Addendum c. Ecological Study Natural Resource Variables 294 Addendum d. Ecological Study Sample Maps 296 3. Report on the Field Trip to Inglewood, California 298 Addendum a. Environmental Impact Study Guidelines 316 Addendum b. Adverse Impact Unit Determination 319 Addendum c. Environmental Clearance Statement 322 Addendum d. Conditions Required by the City Plannning Commission and the Environmental Review Committee for Expansion of Auto Sales Lot 325 Addendum e. Property Maintenance Violations 327 4. Report on the Field Trip to Miamisburg, Ohio 328 Addendum a. References 348 Addendum b. Ordinance 1835 351 Addendum c. "1973" Contractual Agreement 354 Addendum d. Amended Agreement 356 iv Page 5. Piedmont Triad Region, North Carolina 360 Addendum a. Excerpts from Forsyth County (N.C.) Study of "The Feasibility of an Ordinance Requiring Environmental Impact Statements" 385 Addendum b. Ordinance Requiring Environmental Impact Statement 388 v TABLES No. Page I City Response Rate 91 2 County Response Rate 92 3 City Definition of "Environment" 93 4 County Definition of "Environment" 94 5 City Rated Severity of Environmental Problems 95 6 County Rated Severity of Environmental Problems 96 7 City Ranked Importance of Environment as Issue 97 8 City Ranked Local Issues 98 9 City Statement of Environmental Policy 99 10 Year City Environmental Statement Adopted 100 11 County Statement of Environmental Policy 101 12 Year County Environmental Statement Adopted 102 13 City Environmental Department 103 14 City Staff Environmental Committee 104 15 Designated City Environmental Official 105 16 Primary Functions of Separate City Environmental Department 106 17 Primary Functions of City Environmental Section Part of Another Agency 107 18 Year City Environmental Department Established 108 19 Title of a Designated City Environmental Official 109 20 Primary Environmental Functions of Designated City Official 110 21 County Environmental Department III 22 County Staff Environmental-Committee 112 vi No. Page 23 Designated County Environmental Official 113 24 Primary Functions of County Environmental Department 114 25 Title of Designated County Environmental Official 115 26 Primary trivironmental Functions of Designated County Officials 116 27 Expansion of Pre-existing City Citizen Boards of Commissions 117 28 Creation of City Citizen Environmental Board 118 29 Commissions Expanded by City to Include Environment 119 30 Primary Functions of City Citizens Commission 120 31 Specialized City Citizen Environmental Commissions 121 32 Type of Specialized City Citizen Environmental Commission 122 33 Expansion of Pre-existing County Citizen Boards or Commissions 123 34 Creation of County Citizen Environmental Board 124 35 Commissions Expanded by County to Include Environment 125 36 Primary Functions of County Citizens Commissions 126 37 Specialized County Citizen Environmental Commission 127 38 Type of Specialized County Citizen Environmental Commissions 128 39 City-Enacted Land Use Controls 129 40 County-Enacted Land Use Controls 130 41 Other City-Enacted Controls 131 42 Other County-Enacted Controls 132 43 Environmental Section in City Master Plan 133 44 Environmental Section in County Plan - 134 45 City Adopted Environmental Quality Standards 13-5 46 County Adopted Environmental Quality Standards 136 vii No. Page 47 Environmental Areas Regularly Monitored By City 137 48 Environmental Areas Regularly Monitored By County 138 49 City Requirements for Environmental Impact Statements. 139 50 County Requirements.for Environmental Impact Statements 14o 51 Authors of City Environmental Impact Statements 141 52 Authors of County Environmental Impact Statements 142 53 Reviewer of City Environmental Imp act Statements 143 54 Reviewer of County Environmental Impact Statements 144 55 City Imposed Moratoria in Last Two Years 145 56 Type of Delay Caused by City Moratoria 1 46 57 County Imposed Moratoria in Last Two Years 147 58 Type of Delay Caused by County Moratoria 148 59 City Tax Incentives or Subsidies to Improve the Environment 149 60 County Tax Incentives or Subsidies to Improve the Environment 150 61 City Penalty Structure for Discharging Pollutants 151 62 County Penalty Structure for Discharging Pollutants 152 63 City Initiated Major Environmental Legal Suit6 in Last Two Years 153 64 County Initiated Major Environmental Legal Suits.in.Last Two Years 154 65 Local Intergovernmental Service Agreements for Environmental Functions 155 66 City Evaluation of Environmental Agency 156 67 County Evaluation of Environmental Agency 157 68 City Evaluation of Citizen Environmental,Advisory Board (Created) 158 69 City Evaluation of Citizen Advisory Board Expanded to Include Environment 159 vii! No. Page 70 County Evaluation of Citizen Environmental Advisory Board 160 71 County Evaluation of Citizen Advisory Board Expanded to Include Environment 161 72 City Evaluation of Intergovernmental and Regional Arrangements 162 73 County Evaluation of Intergovernmental and Regional Arrangements 163 74 City Evaluation of Land Use Controls 164 75 County Evaluation of Land Use Controls 165 76 City Evaluation of Environmental Quality Standards 166 77 County Evaluation of Environmental Quality Standards 167 78 City Evaluation of Tax incentives 168 79 County Evaluation of Tax Incentives 169 80 City Evaluation of Penalty Charges 170 81 County Evaluation of Penalty Charges 171 82 City Evaluation of Moratoria 172 83 County Evaluation of Moratoria 173 84 City Evaluation of Environmental Impact Statements 174 85 County Evaluation of Environmental Impact Statements 175 86 City Evaluation of Law Suits 176 87 County Evaluation of Law Suits 177 88 Evaluated Effectiveness Index Scores for Cities 178 89 Major Factors Contributing to Development of City Environmental Programs 179 90 Major Factors Contributing to Development of County Environmental Programs 18o 91 Frequency of City Contact with EPA 181 92 Evaluation of City Contacts with EPA-Central Office 182 i x No. Page 93 Evaluation of City Contacts with EPA-Regional Office 183 94 Evaluation of County Contacts with EPA-Central Office 184 95 Evaluation of County Contacts with EPA-Regional Office 185 96 City Proposed Federal Environmental Impact Statement 186 97 Federal Impact Statements reviewed by Cities 187 98 Typie-of City Project with Federal Environmental Impact Statements 188 99 Types of Projects Where Federal Environmental Impact Statements are Reviewed by Cities 189 100 Authors of Federal Environmental Impact Statements on City Projects ]go 101 County Prepared Federal Environmental Impact Statements 191 102 Federal Impact Statements Reviewed by Counties 192 103 Type of County Projects with Federal Environmental Impact Statements 193 104 Type of Projects Where-Federal Environmental Impact Statements Are Reviewed by Counties 194 105 Authors of Federal Environmental Impact Statements on County Projects 195 106 Effect of Federal Environmental Impact Statements Prepared By Cities 196 107 Effect of Federal Environmental Impact Statements Reviewed by Cities 197 108 City as Object of Environmental Suit in Last Two Years 198 109 Party Bringing Suit Against City 199 110 County as Object of Environmental Suit in Last Two Years 200 Ill Party Bringing Suit Against County 201 112 City Compliance Difficulties with State and Federal Standards 202 113 County Compliance Difficulties with State and Federal Standards 203 x No. Page 114 Problems Encountered by Cities in Relations with States 204 115 Problems Encountered by Cities in Relations with Federal Agencies 205 116 Summary City Complaints 206 117 Problems Encountered by Counties in Relations with States 207 118 Problems Encountered by Counties in Relations with Federal Agencies 208 119 Major Obstacles to Environmental Management in Cities 209 120 Major Obstacles to Environmental Management in Counties 210 121 Types of Environment-Related Training Needed for City Management Staff 211 122 Types of Environment-Related Training Needed for County Management Staff 212 123 Areas of City Staff Competence 213 124 Areas of County Staff Competence 214 125 Outside Environmental Expertise Utilized by City in Past Two Years 215 126 Outside Environmental Expertise Utilized by County in Past Two Years 216 xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was conducted by the International City Management Association with the assistance of General Research Corporation. Claire Rubin, Director of the ICMA's Contract Research C@enter, supervised the conduct of the study. Principal responsibility for the project was shared by Steve Carter, Project Director; Murray Frost, consultant for General Research Corporation; and Lyle Sumek, Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado. Joan Werner and Mary Ann Allard provided key pro- fessional support for the project. Additional professional support was provided by A. Akhigbe Erumsele and Wallace Johnson of ICMA, as well as Edward Dodson, William Hamilton, and Alan Eschenroeder of GRC. Stan Wolfson, Carol Pigeon, Laurie Frankel and Richard Hofrichter assisted with the preparation and implementation of the survey. A special word of thanks should be expressed to Harriett Davis and Shirley Bass for their assistance throughout the project. Acknowledgement should also be given to the more than 1,200 city, state, and federal officials who answered our questionnaires or gave us personal interviews. xii SECTION I CONCLUSIONS Environmental programs have become a major function for federal, state, and local governments with respect to the investment of financial and staff resources. Programs range from retitling existing programs in the language of the environmental movement, to adding specific programs aimed at improving the environment, e.g., upgrading a sewage treatment plant, to reassessing the broad range services with regard to their potential for improving or degrading the environment,such as through environmental impact assessment. While local governments have traditionally exercised responsibility for many environmental programs, recent programs have resulted in increased management problems. Demand for new spending, need for new staff ex- pertise, new political pressures, and the search for comprehensive and long-range solutions are some of the added burdens on local officials. Forced to seek new tools, local governments have little experience from which to draw. New ideas attempted by a local government will most likely not become widely known. When information about new programs is disseminated, seldom is any systematic evaluation available. As a result, the role of local governments and their problems and needs can- not be defined accurately. This not only retards the effectiveness of local governments, but also of state and federal environmental programs, which recently have had greater impact on local environmental activities. In 1973 a survey of municipalities with 10,000 and over population and counties over 50,000 was conducted, along with four field studies of local governments. Using the results of these studies this report discusses the environment as a policy issue, the wide range of programs used by local governments in securing and maintaining environmental quality, environmental relations with the federal and state governments, and problems in managing the environment. ENVIRONMENT AS A POLICY ISSUE Initiation of an environmental program depends on how local officials perceive the environment. Do they use a narrow or broad definition? How well do they understand environmental problems in their own com- munity. What priority do they assign to it? DefinitLon of Environment The term "environment", lacking a standard, accepted definition, has a wide range of meanings ascribed to it. The survey posed four I alternative definitions of "environment." The first restricts the definition to the "natural environment" or the categories of pol- lution: "air, noise, sewage, solid waste, toxic substances, water." The second alternative broadens the definition slightly to add "energy, historical preservation, land use, open space, radiation, population, and wildlife preservation." The third adds to all of the above factors "aesthetics, health, housing, mass transportation, recreation, streets, and highways." The final definition is the broadest, reflecting a "quality of life" scope, adding "economic development, education, employment, public safety and welfare." None of the four alternative definitions received support from more than approximately one-third of the respondents. More than half of the cities (57%) and counties (58%) viewed the environment in one of the two broader definitions. However, the lack of consensus may be a source of conflict, as officials in the decision-making process may not share a common perspective. Moreover, this difference would be reflected in the type of environmental programs adopted. Severity of Environmental Problems Local governments were asked to rate the severity of environmental problems-- aesthetics, air, growth, land use, noise, radiation, solid waste, wastewater, water supply -- in their community. Of the nine listed, land use was rated by cities as the most severe problem, with growth, so-lid waste, and wastewater tied for second. Counties rated solid waste as most severe, followed by land use, wastewater, and growth. Although it is assumed that the ratings of severity reflect the nature of the problem in the community, they may also be influenced by the specific legal authority and the availabili-Ly of expertise to analyze environmental problems. Generally, however, the more severely a problem is perceived, the more likely a local government is to attempt to solve it. Ranking the Environmental Issue While the environment is an issue of increasing popularity, most local governments responding did not consider it one of their most important issues. Asked to rank crime, education, environment, housing/urban blight, taxes, transportation, and welfare in order of importance, only about one-third of the local officials responding ranked environment as either the most important or second most important issue facing them. They generally ranked taxes, housing and urban blight, and education as more important issues than the environment. However, the cities in the West ranked the environment as the most important issue, and suburban areas ranked the environment higher than Central cities. Local govern- ments perceive the environment as only one of a number of major issues, suggesting that these programs do not enjoy a favored position in the competition for scarce local resources. 2 STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS OR POLICY Concern for the environment as a policy issue may be expressed as a statement of environmental goals or policy, adopted by the city's legislative body or administration. Such statements provide general guidance for the entire city administration, covering the total range of municipal activities, and how they are developed and implemented. Explicit statements of environmental goals or policies are not typical. Of those cities responding, 20% have adopted a statement while 23% have them under consideration. Twenty-seven percent of the counties have adopted statements and 24% have them under consideration. In general, larger local governments located in the West are more likely to have adopted statements. ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT One of the fundamental tasks of environmental managers is to organize available resources to address specific problems. Because organizing involves the distribution of an agency's resources -- staff, budget, and authority -- it is a crucial determinant of program' success. As local governments have assumed responsibility for various environ- mental programs, they have traditionally established distinct orga- nizational units, e.g., sanitation department, water department. Other local departments with environmental responsibilities might include the planning department, health department, parks department, and inspection department. As a result, environmental activities are often fragmented between several agencies. Three organizational alternatives were in the survey: a separate environmental department, a staff committee, and the designation of a single individual with environmental responsibility. 'The use of the single official with primary responsibility for environmental matters was cited by 40% of the cities and 48% of counties, exhibiting more popularity in the smaller cities, where staffs tend to be smaller and responsibilities tend to fall on a few individuals, and in the larger counties. Twenty percent of the cities and 42% of the counties responding had a staff committee which meets regularly with the specific ta8k of con7 sidering environmental matters. This committee may have responsibility for a wide range of environmental problems, or a more limited charge, such as the review of environmental impact statements. Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Inglewood, California, are examples of these two types of staff committees. An environmental department or agency may take a variety of forms with the primary distinction being whether the unit is a separate depart- ment or part of another department. Twenty-three percent of the cities responding.indicated having an environmental department or agency. Seven 3 percent were separate units and 16% were part of another agency. Counties r@ported 18% and 37% respectively. Examples of existing environmental departments include: the New York City Environmental Protection Agency; Simi Valley (Californi4 Environmental Services Department; Palo Alto (Californi4 Environmental Planning Office; and Austin Crexas)Office of Environmental Resources Management. Dallas, Texas, and Inglewood, California, each have one environmental section in the planning department. CITIZEN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONS Citizen interest in the environment has been particularly demonstra- tive. Most recently, federal environmental legislation, such as the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 -- has specified a major role for citizens. Citizen boards or commissions are a common approach used by local governments to involve citizens. Predictably, the emergence of the environment as an important public is@ue has led to the creation of citizen environmental commissions. According to the survey, nearly one-fourth of the cities and 36% of the counties responding have created such commissions. Most of these commissions have a broad mandate to investigate environmental problems and advise the city; few had any enforcement power. Examples of citizen environmental commissions may be found in Dallas (Environmental Quality Committee) and Guilford County, N. C. (Advisory Board for Environmental Quality). In addition, over half the cities and counties responding reported expanding the functions of an existing board or commission to include environmental functions. The commissions most likely to be expanded are the planning commission and the parks and recreation commission. The Community Environmental Commission in Inglewood, California, is ad example of this approach. I STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING THE ENVIRONMENT A variety of strategies or tools are available to local governments for dealing with environmental problems. Most of these strategies are 'Inewil only because they have not been used specifically in response to environmental problems. Also, more recently, the focus of local programs has been to anticipate and prGvent problems from occurring, rather than to solve them once they arise. Most strategies are applicable to more than one specific environmental problem, although no one is sufficient to deal with the broad range of problems facing local governments. The tools examined in the survey are: a conservation or environmental section in the local master plan; land use controls; other environmental controls; environmental impact assessment; moratoria; tax incentives or effluent charges; and legal suits. 4 Environmental Section in Master Plan While the master plan or comprehensive plan is one of the oldest tools for guiding urban development in use, only in recent years has there been a movement to include a conservation or environmental section. A comprehensive plan coordinates all of the elements that influence physical development. Clearly, environmental considerations deserve to be included on that basis. When queried about the existence of an environmental section in the comprehensive plan of their respective cities, approximately one-fourth of those responding indicated the adoption of such a section. Nearly one-third of the local governments reported that such a section was currently under consideration. Inclusion of an environmental com- ponent is most common in the Northeast (40%), and is under considera- tion most often in the West (48%). The latter case Is due in large part to a California state law requiring local governments to include such an element in their plans. Land Use Controls One of the strategies most frequently utilized by local governments in managing the environment is land use control. While an extensive number of land use controls exist across the country, the survey identified nine controls to test the rate of utilization. The nine were architectural appearances, flood plain zoning, growth limitation, historical preservation, marshland controls, open space zoning, required installation of public facilities by developers, dedication of land for public purposes by developers, and zoning to protect the natural resources. The required installation of public facilities (e.g., sewers) by developers was reported by 83% of the cities and 51% of the counties. The type of facilities required was not reported. The second highest rate of utilization by cities was for open space zoning (48%), reported by 36% of the counties. It is'unclear, however, whether open space zoning was understood to also refer to preservation. Nearly one-half of the cities required dedication of land for public purposes (e.g., schools, parks, streets) by'developers and have adopted flood plain zoning. Counties reported 29% and 33% utilization re- spectively. Other land use controls were used less frequently. Other Environmental Controls A number of other regulatory controls are available to local govern- ments for addressing environmental problems. They were aske'd to identify which of the following nine additional controls had been adopted by their community: abandoned vehicle ordinance, tree pre- servation ordinance, erosion control ordinance, grading (excavation) 5 ordinance, housing code, noise ordinance, restriction on nonreturnable bottles, sanitation (refuse) ordinance, and sign ordinance. The highest city utilization rate (84%) was shared by three controls: sign ordinance, sanitation ordinance, and abandoned vehicle ordinance. A large number of cities (80%) reported adoption of a housing code. The only other control approaching 50% utilization was the grading ordinance, acknowledged by 43% of the cities responding. The only control reported by over one-third of the counties was the sanitation ordinance (49%). Environmental Quality Standards With an increased role for the federal and state governments in setting environmental quality standards, many cities have eliminated their environmental standards or have not developed any. Some states pro- hibit local governments from adopting their own standards. The cities' role is stronger, however, in those areas where they maintain some program functions, such as water and sewerage systems. In some cases, e.g., air pollution, counties serve as the enforcement agents for the state. The survey results reflect these conditions. Of the cities responding, 53% have adopted sewerage standards and 43% water standards, but only 18% have officially adopted noise or air quality standards. Forty-one percent of the counties have adopted sewerage standards, and 31% air and water standards. Only 6% have adopted noise standards. The results also indicate instances where standards are not being monitored or enforced. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) A number of local governments have developed their own procedures for evaluating the environmental impact of projects. According to the survey results, 30% of the cities and 35% of the counties responding have formal requirements for environmental impact statements. However, only 17% of non-western cities have some form of EIS requirement compared to 70% of the western cities. Western counties also dominate the use of EIS. While the processes used by most local governments are similar, there is some variation in the types of projects requiring impact statements. Criteria used to determine whether a statement must be prepared include: public or private in origin, dollar value, number of dwelling units, and type of action required by the local government. Survey results indicated that most local governments require statements on private projects as well as public ones. These results reflect the California EIS experience, where the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act requires local governments to prepare impact statements on both public and private projects. 6 Moratoria Nearly one-fifth of all local governments responding acknowledged imposing some type of moratorium within the past two years. In some cases the moratorium may be a temporary ban while a study or a facility is being completed. In other cases, however, where the problem may be seen as long term, the ban may be for a longer time. The refusing of building permits is the most common type of ban imposed, followed by prohibiting water and sewer connections and denying re- quests for rezoning. Examples of moratoria are: Phoenix, Arizona -- ban on building permits in a proposed open space area; Fairfax County, Virginia -- refusing water and sewer permits in areas with inadequate treatment capacity; and, several California cities -- denying requests for rezoning until EIS procedures could be developed. In Dade County, Florida, a general moratorium authority has been enacted allowing the county manager to declare a moratorium when necessary. Although moratoria may be considered an admission by local officials that previous planning or other programs have been ineffective, their use may prove valuable if the delay is used to analyze alternatives and to develop effective programs, rather than merely postponing the resolution of the problem. Their use frequently occurs as a result of a crisis, and in those circumstances is probably least open to criti- cism. Economic Incentives and Effluent Charges The survey disclosed that only 3% of the cities and 9% of the counties responding use the tax incentive-subsidy approach. This low utiliza- tion rate may be due to a number of factors, including the uncertainty about what comprises an economic incentive. Other factors may include limited legal authority to adopt economic incentives, reluctance to give up scarce revenues and reluctance to "reward" pollutors. Some local governments have been considering the reduction of property taxes (by decreasing the assessed valuation) for land not utilized at Its maximum intensity, e.g., to encourage the maintenance of agricultural land as a means of controlling rapid growth. Other examples include exemption of pollution control devices from property tax and tax-free industrial revenue bonds for the purchase of anti-pollution equipment. Effluent charges are based on the assumption that the environment is common or public property, and therefore any person or organization causing environmental damage must pay for it. These payments are based on the amount and content of the waste discharged. Effluent charges are presently being defined by many local governments with respect to sewerage surcharges and penalty fees. Almost one-quarter of the local governments indicated that they use effluent charges or some other system of taxes or fines. However, some may have interpreted this to Include any environment-related ordinance that might result in a finei 7 Initiating Law Suits The courts have played an active'role in environmental protection. Citizen-initiated suits against pollutors are becoming increasingly common, and some states such as Michigan, have enacted legislation designed to encourage these suits * Filing legal suits represents a strategy available to local governments as well. Of the cities' responding, 10% claimed to have initiated at least one environmental law suit. Law suits were initiated by 14% of the counties responding. Law suits may be seen as an essential aid to an enforcement program and for gaining compliance with environmental impact assessment pro- cedures, but the process is slow and costly. Delays and appeals are likely, especially if the defendant has obtained an injunction against enforcement until the suit is settled. An example of an extensive environmental legal battle is the attempt by the City of Inglewood, California, to alleviate a severe aircraft noise problem. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Strategies All of the strategies tended to be rated as effective rather than ineffective. Local governments utilizing a strategy consistently rated it more effective than non-users did' Cities and counties 'agreed on the four most effective strategies: land use controls, env I ron- mental quality standards, separate environmental agency, and econo-mic incentives.' Cities saw expanded citizen commissions as the least effective strategy, while counties awarded that honor to environmental impact statements and penalty (effluent) charges. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS IN MANAGING THE ENVIRONMENT Environmental management has traditionally been a local responsibility. Throughout the twentieth century, however, there has been increasing environmental activity at the state and federal levels. As a result, the relationships between the federal, state.and local levels have changed. These changes have resulted in conflict and uncertainty. In addition, efforts to solve environmental problems have led to the development of regional approaches, often resulting in the creation of another level of government and more changes in roles and responsibili- ties. The result'is frustration and confusion. City and county complaints about their relations with state and federal governments were similar, with many citing inadequate funding. There was greater criticism of the'federal government regarding program administration. States were subject to greater criticism-than the federal government with regard to conflicting or unreal standards,. unreasonable enforcement measures, inadequate local participation in. policy making, and inadequate technical assistance. The survey results verified the existence of widespread dissatisfaction. One aspect of the interaction between local governments and the federal government concerns the participation of local governments in the federal environmental impact statement process. Many view the EIS process negatively -- 30% of those who have written or reviewed statements indicate they have had no impact and nearly one- half indicate they have consumed extensive staff time and delayed projects. But project improvement is cited by 19% of the cities and 28% of the counties who have written statements. About half the cities and counties say they are having some difficulty meeting state or federal air or water pollution standards. Fifteen percent of the cities and 17% of the counties report being the object of an environmental law suit within the past two years. Nearly half the suits against cities were filed by state or federal agencies, although only 14% of suits against counties were by these agencies. Local governments, however, seem to be quite satisfied with their contacts with EPA central and regional offices. Only 9% of the cities report their contacts with the central office are unsatisfactory; and the same proportion Indicates dissatisfaction with their regional office contact. But smaller, Western, and suburban cities have both less contact,and less satisfying contact with EPA. Only 8% of the counties rated their contacts with the central office as unsatisfactory, and 10% the regional office. FACTORS AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS In order to determine the motivations of local governments to develop environmental programs, the survey asked local officials to identify the major factors contributing to and inhibiting the development of environmental programs. Nearly 70% of the cities and 77% of the counties responding indicated that state and federal requirements were a contributing factor. The factor "concerned officials" was the only one to receive a greater response (75%) by cities. Citizen support was another important contributing factor; 50% of the cities and 54% of the counties listed public support and 44% and 58% active environ- mental and civic groups respectively. Surprisingly, only 38% of the cities indicated state and federal financial incentives as a contri- buting factor, although 51% of the counties cited this. I The major obstacle identified by about 70% of the local governments was inadequate finances. Over half of the respondents mentioned frag- mentation of responsibility between levels of governments. The third most important obstacle listed was the lack of expertise. CONCLUSION Local governments have been acting carefully and deliberately in the development of policies and strategies to implement them. As indicated by the survey results, there are many reasons for this. First, local 9 officials have no clear concept of the environment; no simple definition exists. The environment is understood as a complex, interrelated problem requiring comprehensive, long range solutions. The environ- mental manager must develop new techniques and make organizational changes to gain effective utilization. Second, environmental needs compete for scarce resources in local governments. New environmental programs require substantial funds for acquiring staff expertise or capital facilities, as do housing and education problems, among others. Third, there is an absence of proven environmental strategies or tools. Efforts have refocused on existing tools, such as land use controls, because many cities have limited statutory capability for innovation. Even when strategies have been developed, there has been little evaluation of them or staff expertise employed to implement innovation. Finally, there is confusion about roles and responsibilities among levels of government. This results in local frustration or 'inaction. Most cities will not initiate programs if anticipated actions at the federal or state level would cancel these efforts. For example, local governments will not adopt standards if they anticipate preemption of that function by the state. Or, local governments will wait to build sewage treatment plants until the federal government determines the necessary water quality standards and what funding assistance is to be made available. These problems highlight the difficulties involved in managing the environment or any program area characterized by rapid change. The result is a period of transition where problems are reevaluated, policy redirected, new strategies selected, new resources identified, and strategies implemented. 10 SECT ION I I SURVEY OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT A. Local Environmental Management: Forecasts and Change Since their inception, local governments in America have carried out a variety of environmental functions. For nearly two hundred years, local governments have been broadening their environmental activities at a relatively leisurely pace generally in response to community needs. In the past few years, however, a grand environmental aware- ness burst unexpectedly upon the national scene. The original Earth Day, April 22, 1970, complete with teach-ins and rallies,.was the first major indication of the popular strength of environmental con- cern, a concern that has already brought about significant changes in programs and institutions at all levels of government. The effect of the "environmental movement" has been to accelerate the wheels of change, resulting in major difficulties at the local level in managing the environment. ANTECEDENTS TO CHANGE Environmental programs traditionally have been part of the services provided by local governments since colonial times. The earliest functionsprovided were police and fire, followed closely by roads, wastewater disposal, water supply, and refuse disposal. The potential for health problems primarily motivated leading local governments to assume responsibility for these environmental services. Recorded environmental landmarks include the installation of sanitary sewers in Boston in 1823 and the adoption of smoke controls by Chicago and Cincinnati in 1881. Local responsibility for environmental matters was altered little over the years. The scope of local programs remained essentially water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste and parks and open space. Most local governments were organized by major programs, so each of these areas was placed under the jurisdiction of separate and distinct departments, e.g., Water Department, Parks Department, and the like. Typically the duties of these departments were to provide sufficient service capacity. This translated into objectives such as having enough drinking water and being able to get rid of all garbage and sewage. The early techniques used by local governments were not very sophis- ticated. At first, sewage was discharged directly into a nearby body of water without benefit of any treatment. Garbage was frequently burned. As new technology was developed, attempts were made to incor- porate it into the existing operation. Of course this was not always 11 the case. Unfortunately, it was not uncommon for local agencies to look upon environmental problems entirely from a local perspective. The effects of waste disposal upon neighboring communities were not always considered. In fact, as late as 1950 every major city on the Missouri River, including Kansas City and St. Louis, was dis- charging raw sewage into the river. Likewise, environmental programs were not frequently examined for the impact on other segments of the environment. The adequacy of local environmental programs be- came even more difficult to maintain in rapidly growing metropolitan areas. As a result, there has been a trend since around 1950 toward greater state and Federal involvement in this once exclusively local sphere. In 1955 Congress authorized the Public Health Service to conduct research and provide technical assistance to state and local agencies in the area of air pollution. However, as late as 1961, only seventeen states and eighty-five municipalities had programs involving expendi- tures of $5,000 or more each year. Only six states were engaged in enforcement activities, the remainder confining their role to technical assistance and encouragement of local programs.* In 1963 Congress enacted the Clean Air Act enlargening the federal role in air pollu- tion control, The Act provided for expanded research and training; grants-in-aid (up to two-thirds of the cost) to state and local agen- cies; and direct federal enforcement activities in certain defined interstate emergencies. Amendments in 1965 and 1967 authorized standards for automobiles, the designation of air quality control regions, state standards and implementation plans, and federal power to step in where state action is inadequate. Similar steps were taken to meet water problems. The Water Poll'ution Control Act was passed in 1956 and amended in 1961 and 1965. The initial legislation encouraged state and local governments to step up their own efforts to combat water pollution through program grants and construction grants. Gradually the federal role was expanded to include establishment of water quality standards and implementation for all interstate and coastal waters. Congress also responded to the solid waste problem with the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. This Act provided for federal research, technical assistance, demonstrations of new technology, and grants for state and interstate solid waste planning programs. In spite of the increased state and federal involvement in environmental programs, performance was still far from consistent. In a report to Congress in 1970, the following conditions were described: *John C. Bollens and Henry J. Schmandt. The Metropolis. (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), P. 325. 12 ."Less than one-third of the Nation's population is served by a system of sewers and an adequate treat- ment plant. About one-third is not served by a sewer system at all. About five percent is served by sewers which discharge their wastes without any treatment. And the remaining thirty-two percent have sewers but inadequate treatment plants."* .11 ... of the fifty-five State and territorial [air pollution abatement] programs being financed by the grants of the program in 1970, only six have reached an annual per capita expenditure of twenty-five cents" (considered a minimum for state programs). ."At the local level, --- sixty-four of 144 grantee agencies are spending at least forty cents per capita per year" (considered a minimum for local programs).+ ."[Solid Waste] disposal facilities are equally inadequate and antiquated." Estimates show that "ninety-four percent of existing land disposal operations and seventy- five percent of incinerator facilities are substandard."* While the occurrence of crises, the publication of sympathetic books (e.g., Rachel Carson's The Silent Spring) and the increased coverage by all the media have all contrTuMe-T -to public awareness and concern, it is likely that increasing personal experience with "sensory shocks" has been more effective in developing concern. Such shocks include burning eyes, smog-clouded scenery, waters banned for swimmers and fishermen, litter, contaminated food, the demise of natural areas failing wayside to new development, and the prospect of more and more *First Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970 , p. 35. +Ibid, p. 83. *Ibid, p. 106. 13 people causing even greater environmental abuse and deterioration. These personal experiences seem verified by the results of contemporary scientific studies showing irreversible damage to wildlife, harmful chemicals in food and drugs, and so forth. In a short period of time, the awareness and concern for the environment has been transformed into a potent political force. This has been demonstrated by the actions recently taken by voters in bond elections, elections for public office, and referrenda on environmental issues. In an editorial following the election in November, 1972, the Washington Post stated: Among other facts confirmed by the elections, it is clear now that concern for the environment is not the fad or passing whim many believed it was. In large numbers of elections--in states, cities and neighborhoods where the issues were not abstractions but community realities that people must live with--voters supported either the pro-environ- ment candidate or the pro-environment referendum. Often, this support came in full awareness of the cost: environmental bond issues won in all parts of the country. New Yorkers approved issuance of $1.15 billion in bonds for anti- pollution measures, Washington state voters agreed to $265 million and Floridians $240 million. The more publicized environmental victories included the emphatic rejection of the 1976 Winter Olympics by Colorado citizens and the decision of Californians to preserve their coastline from over development. But less noticed triumphs also reveal the strength of the environmental movement. Senator Lee Metcalf's win in Montana, for example, suggested that his strong opposition to the strip mine, timber and power interests is shared by a majority of the voters. In Colorado, Senator Gordon Allott, whose interest in environ- mental cases can perhaps be measured by his support for the Olympic invasion, was defeated. In other races--for Senate, House and governorships--the League of Conservation Voters endorsed 57 candidates (35 Democrats and 22 Republicans) and 43 won ... * EXPANDED STATE AND FEDERAL EFFORTS The increase in public concern over the environment precipitated a period of rapid and major change by federal, state and local govern- ments. Highlights of federal actions include: *"The Environmental Veto," Editorial, Washington Post, November 19, 1972. 14 .The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, requiring environmental impact assessment of all federal projects .The Council on Environmental Quality, created in 1970 as an advisory body to the President .The Environmental Protection Agency, formed in 1970 consolidating fifteen programs previously vested in a dozen agencies' .The Clean Air Act of 1970, setting national standards for air quality and empowering the federal government to implement them if necessary .The Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, creating a permit program for all dischargers of liquid waste (including municipalities), setting standards, and working toward a goal of "zero-discharge" of pollutants into waters by 1985. .The Pesticide Control Act of 1972, requiring all makers to register all pesticides with EPA .The Noise Control Act of 1972, authorizing noise emission standards for construction and transportation equipment, motors and engines and e-lectrical devices .The Land Use Act of 1973, encouraging states to prepare state land use[Mationallplans, designating critical environmental areas for special control. (Legislation currently pending] House Speaker Carl Albert reported that the 92nd Congress considered more than 150 bills dealing with the environment and natural resources, and more than ninety of them became law. State governments have taken wide-ranging actions on environmental issues also. According to the Council of State Governments, nearly every state legislature enacted laws to protect or preserve environ- mental quality since 1970. Among the actions taken by June, 1973 are: .Fourteen states passed legislation protecting water, coastlands and shorelands .At least ten states adopted regulations on noise .Seven states guaranteed the right to clean air and water in their constitutions .Twelve states passed laws establishing overall land use regulations .Six states (Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota and Nebraska) allow citizens to file suit against pollutors .Several states enacted controls or bans on pesticides .Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennessee enacted legislation regulating surface and strip mining, .A number of states created special departments for environmental affairs .California adopted an Environmental Quality Act in 1970 requiring local governments to investigate the environmental impact of all projects, public and private 15 Other state programs include: air and water pollution control, regional solid waste disposal planning, and financial assistance to local governments for pollution control facilities. LOCAL RESPONSE As with the federal and state governments, public concern over the environment has had a tremendous impact on local governments. Many have proceeded to develop a varied assortment of environmental programs, plans, and controls. The actions of local governments, however, are not so easy to classify. Not only do the number, size, composition, and environmental needs of local governments promote diversity, but their officials hold different opinions and philosophies as well. The recent environmental movement met with mixed reaction from local officials. Typical responses are: "We've been doing environmental programs for years before it became popular;" "we should not devote any more resources to physical problems at the expense of 'people' problems;" or "recognizing the importance of the environment was the best thing that ever happened." The first response mentioned reflects the traditional role of local government in the environmental area as discussed earlier. This view not only emphasizes the length of time that local governments have been involved in environmental programs, but also the fundamental nature of that involvement--they live with the problems, deliver the service, and help pay for it. Other local officials saw in the environmental movement an unwanted diversion from "people-oriented" social programs, which have been neglected so long in our urban areas. For those who feel the problems of poverty and racism to be the major unresolved problems facing the nation, environmental concern can be interpreted as another attempt to ignore the needs of the poor and the black. A third set of officials were quick to realize the importance of the environmental issue as it exists in their community today and capitalized upon it for developing a new set of environmental programs. Some of these programs include: .setting up an environmental unit within the organization .adding environmental input to the planning program .improving pollution control facilities .increasing the efficiency of solid waste collection .working with environmentally concerned citizens .developing procedures for controlling growth .evaluating the environmental impact of local activities 16 Even though the environmental movement has met with mixed reactions from local officials, it is generally seen as having a major impact on: (1) the role of local government, and (2) the role of local administrators. At a meeting in Minneapolis, local officials saw the potential impact of the movement on local government to be: "increased complexity of decision making;" "changes in resource allocation;" "require new technology;" 11require personnel with new skills;" "greater citizen involvement;" 11greater intergovernmental cooperation;'' "creation of special purpose agencies;'' "responsibilities assigned to higher levels of government;" "inclusion of quality-of-life factors in decision making."* The perceived impacts of the environmental movement on the role of local chief administrators were: "more sophistication in the planning process;" "more patience;" "more information;" "increased coordination skills;'' ''technologist will threaten generalist manager." It is clear that local officials anticipate the changes resulting from the environmental movement (although they may not personally agree with it). But how have local officials responded to the needed changes? What are their unsatisfied needs? STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Although local governments occupy a key position in environmental management, little organized data exists on environmental activities at that level. Information that does exist is usually related to a limited geographical area (one city or county) or is of a technical nature (e.g., solid waste routing techniques). This information gap is a handicap to federal, state and local governments in developing environmental policies and programs. For local governments, it means that they may remain unaware of potentially useful programs, or that they may expend valuable staff time in developing procedures that have already been painstakingly refined by another agency. Or, federal or state governments may develop programs to encourage or discourage a local activity without knowing what the impact of any new programswould be on local resources. This is especially important in an area such as the environment where changes are occurring so rapidly. Anticipating the development of additional environmental policies and programs at all levels of government, an informed understanding of local environmental management is essential for preventing duplication and assuring coordinated efforts. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study is to provide a broad overview of environmental management at the local level. This overview comprises a national *Discussions held at the Environmental Management Workshop, Annual Conference, International City Management Association, Minneapolis, September, 1972. 17 perspective on the environmental policies, programs, problems, and needs of local governments. It does not attempt to evaluate or assess the success of particular programs in detail. With virtually no organized data on local environmental management, highest priority was placed on developing an overview. With this broad perspective in hand, research on individual programs and problems would then be more meaningful. The focus of the study was the local chief administrative official-- city manager, city administrator, chief administrative officer, mayor, county executive, etc.--and on the strategic role that this official plays in local environmental management. The position provides access to both the policy and administrative processes, and holds primary responsi- bility for devising management strategies for dealing with the environment. OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY The research was divided into three major tasks: (1) a conference discussion of environmental management; (2) a survey of local governments; and (3) field studies in four local governments. The conference discussion was conducted at a one-day workshop on environmental management as part of the Annual Conference of the International City Management Association. It was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in September, 1972. The purpose of the workshop was to identify key issues of environmental management and obtain guidance for the remainder of the study. The workshop agenda featured a role-playing exercise and discussions of various environmental problems, local environmental programs, and intergovernmental relations. The conference discussions were instrumental in establishing the framework for both the survey and the field studies. The major areas selected for study were: .attitude of local officials toward the environment, its meaning and priority .environmental policy development .organizational structure for handling environmental problems, including internal organization, organizing for citizen involve- ment, and intergovernmental relations .environmental strategies or tools, including environmental impact assessment, comprehensive planning and land use controls, local regulations and controls for air, water, noise, etc., moratoria, legal actions, financial incentives and penalty structures, environmental quality standards The survey consisted of an eight-page questionnaire which was mailed to the chief executive officers in all cities over 10,000 population and counties over 50,000 population. The survey was designed to provide a broad national perspective of environmental management in local government, covering the areas listed above. Complementary surveys were sent to selected federal officials and to the fifty states. A detailed description of the survey methodology can be found at the beginning of the following section. 18 In order to add depth to the broad perspective of the survey, a series of field studies was conducted in four localities of various sizes and geographic settings. These studies were not meant to be comprehensive studies of environmental activities in the four areas. Rather, they were aimed at providing an operational example of some of the strategies identified in the survey. The following areas were visited: Dallas, Texas; Inglewood, California; Miamisburg, Ohio; and the Piedmont-Triad area, North Carolina. Other program information from local governments was received with survey responses and is injected where possible. For additional discussion of the field study methodology, see the beginning of Section 2. A project advisory committee consisting of four local administrators was formed to provide a practical and experienced perspective during the study. The committee was composed of Douglas Ayres, City Administrator of Inglewood, California; Richard Gray, City Manager of Norman, Oklahoma; Bert Johnson, County Manager of Arlington County, Virginia; and John Laney, City Manager of Miamisburg, Ohio. These officials participated in the study throughout its duration. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT This report is organized around the major research elements. Following this introduction, the survey of local environmental management is discussed. Relevant state and federal data areinserted when appropriate. The second section examines the four field studies. Using a format parallel to the first section, this section integrates the field studies into a single discussion. The tables of survey data and case studies written for each field study can be found in the Appendices of the respective sections. 19 B. Survey of Local Environmental Management Introduction Among the purposes of the-Environmental Management project were to find out local officials' general perceptions of the environment; the actions or strategies local governments have adopted to manage the environment, their problems, and needs for the future; as well as their general evaluation of the alternative envi.ronmental manage- ment strategies that are available. To collect this information, an 8-page quest-ionnaire-with thirty-six main questions and a number of sub-parts (enough to fill 259 columns on the standard IBM card) was developed. (See Appendix I for the text of this questionnaire.) After pre-testing the questi-onnaire on the fifty-member Research Advisory Board of ICMA, it was sent to the chief executives of the 2,272 cities over 10,000 population and the 639 counties over 50,000 population. Although the survey instruments sent to the cities and counties were identical, the response rates varied; the data from both are reported separately. Because of time and financial constraints, only two mailings of the questionnaire.were'made,'the,first in February 1973, and the second in April 1973. However, the re- sponse rate for this questionnaire, despite the reduced mailings and earlier deadline, is typi'cal of other surveys conducted by ICMA. Almost half (49%) or 1115 of the cities responded, -comparing favorably to the response rates for studies using the same size range of cities reported in the .1973 Municipal Yearbook.. The patterns for the 'response rates for thi's sur'vey are-also typical of other ICMA studies. Larger cities are more likely to respond than smaller ones, Western cities mor@ than the other sections of the country, central cities more than suburbs or-independent cities, council-manager cities more than mayor-council ones. The same pattern occurs for the counties. Table I shows-the response rates . . . for cities. *Despite the somewhat.uneven distribution of responses, - the fact that environment is rated as only.the fourth most critical issue and that a number of the strategies are used by only a small minority of the.cities or counties s'uggests that the results are not biased in favor of environmentally concerned or active cities. Table 2 presents the-response rate for counties. Since the response rate for counties is considerably less--only 177 or 28% responding-- the main emphasis of this report is on analyses of city data. County data in this report are usually reported in terms of agreement or disagreement with the city data. *All Tables can be found in Appendix 2. 20 In addition to learning about local governments ' perceptions and activities, one purpose of the project is to analyze the dif- ferences between the perceptions of local officials and those involved in environmental management at the state and federal levels. In order to discover the perceptions of these other officials the basic questionnaire was revised and sent to the Governor o? each state and to 49 federal officials. (See Appendix 3 4 The response rates for these questionnaires are small and unrepresentative (e.g., only nineteen states responded, and only two of these -are among the ten largest states in the nation; only thirty-six federal official responses were received). But the perceptions of these state and federal.officials* may be indicative of patterns at these governmental levels and their responses are noted whenever relevant. Besides the samples not being perfect replicas of the popula- tions, several other limitations should be noted. Although the questionnaires were sent to the chief executive of the cities, counties, and states,- this official may have delegated the responsibility to others in his office or in a relevant department. Similarly, the federal official may also have delegated it to a member of his staff. Therefore, data on perceptions -- such as evaluations of environmental management strategies -- reflect the views of the particular respondent rather than his governmental entity; different officials in the same jurisdiction might have different views. In addition, there is evidence that some respondents may have misinterpreted certain questions. The report utilizes ICMA's standard definitions of region and metropolitan status. Four regions are used, reflecting those used by the Bureau of the Census. Unfortunately, these do not conform to the ten regions used by EPA. The Northeast is composed of New England states (Maine, Vermont, New Ha-mp-sh'ri-re-,Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut) and the Middle Atlantic states (New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey); the North Central is composed of: Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas; the South Includes the states of the South Atlantic (Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida); the East South Central (Kentucky, Tennessee, Missi.ssippi, and Alabama), and the West South Central (Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana); the West is composed-of the Mountain states (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico), and the Pacific states (Washington, Oregon, California ' Alaska, and Hawaii). City types also are derived from basic Bureau of the Census defi- nitions; central cities are the central cities of an SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area); suburbs are all other cities in an SMSA, and independent cities are a]) cities outside of an SMSA. 21 This part first examines the perceptions of environment as a policy issue. It then looks at several organizational elements for managing the environment. Following this, the utilization of alternative action strategies to manage the environment is examined and finally the evaluations of these alternatives are analyzed. A subsequent section looks at the factors perceived as contributing to the develop- ment of environmental management programs. Next, the survey responses concerning intergovernmental relations are analyzed. The penultimate section reports on the problems of the local governments and their chief executives in managing the environment. The last chapter sum- marizes the survey data and makes several observations about them. 22 C. Environment as a Policy Issue Introduction The perceptions of the environment as a policy issue are important for several reasons. First, these perceptions shape any action undertaken. A local government's policy, in part, depends on whether it perceives a problem as serious or merely of minor concern, and whether it perceives a problem in its narrowest dimensions or as one facet of a complex constellation of issues. Second, the degree of consensus of'perceptions is one factor influencing the ability of units of government to work together. If there is consensus, then the likelihood of cooperation between governments at the same level (and governments at different levels) is greater. If there is little consensus at one level (or be- tween levels), then the likelihood of misunderstanding or conflict increases. This section of the paper examines four aspects of the environment as a policy issue. First, it focuses upon how the three levels of government, as represented in our samples, define the scope of the environmental issue. Second, it examines the local governments' perceptions of the severity of various aspects of the environmental problem--e.g., the severity of the problem of solid waste or air pollution. Third, it analyzes the ranking of the environmental issue compared to other issues, as perceived by the respondents from each of the three levels of govern- ment. Finally, this section looks at the development of a statement of environmental goals or policies as another indicator of the perception of the environment as an issue. These statements may merely be official general expressions on this policy issue, or, more importantly, they may serve as the foundation for a program of action. DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENT Our questionnaire assumes great variation among local governmental officials' perceptions of the term "environment," and our survey results confirm the lack of consensus. Four alternative definitions of "environ- ment" were posed, each increasing in the breadth of its coverage. The first choice restricts the definition to the "natural environment" or the pollution media: "air, noise, sewerage, solid waste, toxic sub- stances, water." The second alternate definition broadens it slightly to include "energy, historical preservation, land use and open space, radiation, population, and wildlife preservation," as well as those as- pects listed in the first definition. The third alternative adopts all the previously mentioned factors and adds more factors, largely reflec- ting elements of the "physical environment" including "aesthetics, 23 health, housing, mass transportation, recreation, streets and highways.11 The last alternative is the broadest, almost reflecting a general "quality of life" scope; it includes all of the factors mentioned earlier, plus: "economic development, education, employment, public safety, and welfare." None of the four alternative definitions receivessupport from more than approximately one third of the respondents (see Table 3). The narrowest definition is accepted by 17%, the next broadest by 26%, the next by 23%, and the broadest definition by 34%. This lack of consensus may be a source of conflict as the actors in the decision making process do not share a common perspective. It is significant, however, that the cities are more likely to view environment in its broader dimensions--more than half (57%) select one of the two broader definitions, and less than a fifth (17%) restrict their definitions to the natural environment only. This suggests that proposals to manage the environment through regulation of elements which contribute indirectly to pollution (e.g., regulating land use in order to affect transportation patterns thereby reducing air pollution) would not be rejected on the grounds of having only remote relevance to environment; many city official-s already view land use and transportation as part of "environment." Some types of cities are more likely to view the environment broadly than other cities. Cities in the West are most likely to interpret environ- ment broadly, while those in the Northeast define the term most narrowly. Central cities define it somewhat more broadly than suburbs or indepen- dent cities. This may generally reflect their broader responsibilities and more diverse programs, or it may actually reflect the specific content of each proposed definition (e.g., mass transportation is included as part of the third definition, and the largest cities--over 250,000 population--are most likely to select this definition). But there is no consistent relationship between the size of the city and how its officials define environment. Cities with a council-manager form of government view it slightly more broadly than those with the mayor-council form. This may stem from the managers' greater administrative responsibilities which make them a focal point for decisions on a wide range of issues, thereby reinforcing their view of environment as a complex and inter- related set of issues. The same basic pattern occurs in the counties' responses, which also show little consensus. No one definition is cited by more than 38% of those surveyed. The respondents most likely to use the broad defini- tion are Western counties, metropolitan counties, and counties with an administrator (see Table 4). Our samples of state and federal respondents indicate the same pattern of little consensus among themselves and a preference for a broad 24 definition of environment. Of the nineteen statesresponding, only one defines environment in the narrowest terms; almost three-fourths (74%) divide equally between the two broadest definitions. Similarly, only 8% of the federal respondents see environment in its narrowest dimension, while 44% choose the broadest definition, and another one-third choose the next broadest. The broad perspective of the federal respondents is surprising since the legislative mandates of most of the agencies are specialized rather than general. Although there are differences among the officials responding to this question, a majority of each group indicates a preference for a broad definition of environment as a policy issue. The different levels of government, therefore, show a greater similarity of perspective than might have been expected given their varying mandates and constituencies. SEVERITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS The cities were asked to rate the severity of nine environmental problems in their community on a 5-point scale from no problem (1) to severe problem (5). The nine problems in the order of the mean severity scores are: PROBLEM MEAN I land use (3-3) (2) growth (3.2) (2) solid waste (3.2) (2) wastewater (3.2) 5 aesthetics (2.8) (6) noise (2.4) (6) water supply (2.4) 8 air (2-3) 9 radiation (1.2) The problem of land use--although not specifically defined in the ques- tionnaire or by the respondents--is ranked as the most severe problem by all size categories, by all regions except the Northeast, by metropolitan cities, and by council-manager cities. The only other problems ranked as most severe by any category of cities are solid waste and growth (see Table 5). The solid waste problem shows the greatest variations in scores across any categorization of cities--the average rating in the West for that problem is 2.7 compared to an average of 3.6 for the Northeast. In the West solid waste is ranked sixth in importance as compared to the North- east which on the average ranks it as the most serious problem. In this case, the severity of the problem may be more a function of available land for land-fill than of the size of the city, in view of the fact 25 that the average severity score assigned to the problem does not vary with the population classification of the cities. Air pollution is the only problem that valries directly wi.th population; the larger the city the higher the average severity score for the prob- lem. This is to be anticipated because of the concentration of sources of air pollution--automobiles and industries--in population centers. Although none of the other environmental problems varies with population size, a composite score of the average severity scores does indicate that the larger cities face (or perceive that they face) more severe environmental problems. The average severity scores for the three largest city-size groups are 2.78, 2.70, and 2.72 respectively, while for the next three groups they are 2.67, 2.67 and 2.63. Other differ- ences in the composite average severity score indicate that council- manager cities rate their environmental problems more severely than mayor-council cities (2.69 and 2.58 respectively), and metropolitan areas more severely than independent cities (2.68 for central cities, 2.67 for suburbs, and 2.61 for independent cities). The results for the responding counties are basically similar but show some variations from the city response. The ordering and average severity scores for the counties are: PROBLEM MEAN I solid waste (3-7) 2 land use (3.6) 3 wastewater (3-5) 4 growth (3-3) 5 water supply (2.8) 6 aesthetics (2-7) 7 air (2-5) 8 noise (2-3) 9 radiation (1.2) The greatest differences are the higher severity scores for solid waste and water-supply problems for the counties. For the counties, both air and noise pollution vary directly with city size. There is a slight tendency for the larger counties to rate the severity of their problems higher. Metropolitan counties also rate their problems as more severe (see Table 6). Although it is assumed that rankings of severity reflect the nature of the problem in the community, they may also reflect the extent of authority and expertise available to determine the nature of problems. Land use is controlled by the local governments and they report they have exper- tise in that area. Similarly, the counties' rating of air pollution as 26 more severe and noise as less severe than cities may reflect the locus of control for these forms of pollution rather than the extent of the problems. COMPARATIVE RANK OF ENVIRONMENT ISSUE The environment as an issue has increased in importance in recent years at the national and state levels as well as in many local communities. Nevertheless,.most cities responding to the survey do not consider it one of their most important local issues. Only about one-third of the respondents rate the issue as the most important or second most important issue facing their cities (see Table 7). Cities generally rate taxes, housing and urban blight, and education as more important issues; environment ranks fourth overall (see Table 8). Environment is of greatest concern in the West--which is the only region where cities rank it as the most important issue. Almost half (44%) of the responding cities in the West rank it first or second in importance, while only 11% rank it sixth through eighth. Responses to other questions also indicate the Western cities are more likely to perceive various environmental problems (e.g., air pollution) as more serious than the other regions; it appears that their concern may be more recent than some of the other regions as they have initiated certain strategies and organizational forms more recently. The larger cities are less likely to rate environment as one of the two most im- portant issues and more likely to rank it at the bottom of the list. There is a contrast in the ranking of environment and other issues depending upon the metropolitan status of the cities. Suburbs rank the issue higher than do the central cities (cities independent of a metro- politan area rank it between the other two city-types). The suburbs give the environment issue their third highest mean ranking at 2.8, compared to independent cities giving their fourth highest mean at 2.9, and the central cities placing it fifth among the issues with a mean rating of 3.2. Although the environment issue affects us all--those iiving in the inner city as well as suburbia--the press of other issues in the central cities places environment lower in the hierarchy of issues. The consistently high rankings given taxes as a local issue suggests that environmental programs may have difficutly gaining approval when their costs become known, or that financial support for local environ- mental programs must come from state or federal sources. On the other hand, judging from local environmental bond elections, [and from the public opinion survey noted earlier ]the public seems to accept greater expenditures for environmental purposes at this time. It should be noted that many cities (20%) took the opportunity afforded them by the questionnaire to add their own issues to our list of seven 27 issues. Among the problems specified as important are liquid and solid waste disposal and others directly related to environmental problems, such as land use. If these responses had been recoded as "environment," that issue would probably have ranked higher. In contrast to the local governments which often have other priorities, the state and federal respondents rate the environment as the most important issue with mean ratings of 2.2 and 3.1 respectively. With regard to taxes, state respondents place it as the third most important issue (with a mean rating of 3-0), while the federal administrators rate it as tied for least important of the seven issues (with a mean rating of 5.0). This comparison of rankings of various issues suggests that if these patterns are truly reflective of the views of all city and state chief executives and federal agencies involved in the environment area, then the potential for conflict is great. Local governments may be reluctant to undertake expensiv e environmental-management programs, while state and federal officials may not understand this reluctance given their relative perception of the issues. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS OR POLICY The adoption of a statement of general environmental goals or policy may be no more than an official expression of the environment as a policy issue, or it may be the first logical step in the development of a plan for managing the environment. Regardless of its intent or use, and regardless of the issue, explicit statements of goals are not typical for local governments. Adoption of a statement of general environmental policy principles or goals is no exception. Relatively few cities, only one-fifth, indicate they have adopted a statement. But a larger number--approximately 23%--report that it is under consideration by city officials (see Table 9). Goals or policy statements are more likely to have been adopted by the larger cities--32% of the cities over 100,000 compared to 19% of the other cities. Central cities, regardless of their size, are also more likely to have adopted them. Western cities show the highest use (37%), although they are more recent converts than other cities--63% of them adopted environmental goals or policy statements in 1972 or 1973, compared to 31% for the other regions. In fact, 45% of all cities adopted them in 1972 or 1973. The recent use of this action is also illustrated by the fact that only 20% of the cities which adopted statements did so prior to 1970. Larger cities, central cities, and mayor-council cities were more likely to be early adopters than smaller, suburban or independent, and council-manager cities (see Table 10). The counties responding to our survey report a slightly higher use (27%) and contemplation (24%) of statements of environmental policy or goals than was shown by cities. Their responses also Indicate recent adoption 28 (37% since 1972 and only 24% prior to 1970). Again, in the West, counties indicate the most frequent use and also the most recent adoption. No counties indicate adoption of such statements prior to 1970. Metro- politan counties were earlier and more frequent users than non-metro- politan counties (see Tables 11 and 12). SUMMARY When representatives of local and state governments and federal agencies are asked which of four definitions of environment they prefer, there is little consensus. No definition is endorsed by a majority of any set of officials. But the two broader definitions are more likely to be endorsed than the two narrower ones. State and federal respondents are especially likely to choose the broader definitions. The two environment problems seen as most serious by the cities and counties are land use and solid waste, although not all parts of the country or types of local governments necessarily rate only these prob- lems as the two most serious ones. Local officials' recognition of land use problems as serious suggests that its contribution to environmental conditions and the role of land use regulations in safeguarding or managing the environment are also recognized. Local governments see environment as only one of a number of serious local problems, usually ranking it as less important than other issues, especially taxes. But the state and federal respondents see environment as the most important issue and rank taxes lower (the federal officials' rank taxes seventh in priority). This suggests the possibility of conflict within local government between competing programs for the financial resources which are perceived of as scarce, and conflict between the local governments and other levels of government which do not share this perception of taxes as a critical issue and which see environment as the most important issue. Few municipalities--only about one-fifth of the cities and 27% of the counties--have translated their perceptions of the environment as a policy issue, into an explicit statement of environmental goals or policy. However, many more local governments report they have it under consideration. 29 D. Organizational Aspects of Envi-ronmental Management Introduction Environmental management is not a new enterprise for local govern- ment, even though new attention is being given to it. One conse- quence of this ongoing activity is that a local government is likely to already have some existing organizational structure when ' an environmental management strategy involving programs of action is developed.. What is frequently needed.organizationally is a way to coordinate new and old programs. One focus of this section is to examine local governments' use of three alternate means of coordination specifically, the creation of an environmental department, the use of a staff committee, and the use of an official designated as primarily responsible for environmental matters. Another element of organizational structure that is receiving more attention in the 1970's than ever before, although it too has been an ongoing feature of local government decision making, con- cerns citizen participation. One means of facilitating citizen participation that involves an organizational unit is the use of citizen boards and/or commissions. The use of such boards and commissions is the second organizational aspect of environmental management examined in this section. ORGANIZATION Environmental management is marked by a fragmentation of responsibility. Even within a single jurisdiction, many agencies may be involved, yet each may have responsibility for only a portion.of the environ- ment (e.g., collection and disposal of solid waste, or treatment of liquid waste). The need for coordination, therefore, is great. A number of methods is available. Some local governments have created a single environment department which encompasses all or most of the functions previously carried.out by many departments. Others may have created an environment department as an additional department or agency without major re-organization of existing departments. A third alter native is to expand the functions of an existing depart- ment so that it functions as an environment department. A different met hod of coordination is to have a staff committee which meets regul.arly with the specific task of considering environment matters. This committee may cover the entire range of environmental management problems, or it may have a'more limited scope such as review of environmental impact statements. An alternative method of coordi- nation is to focus responsibility for environmental management by 30 designating a single official as having primary responsibility for environmental matters; this person may already be serving as the chief executive, be on the chief executive's immediate staff, or be the head of a department with some environmental responsibility. These alternatives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It is possible for a city to indicate it has an environmental department and to designate its head as having primary responsibility, or for a city to have a staff committee playing a coordinating role but to designate its chief executive as having primary responsibility for environment matters. The data on the cities' responses indicate a remarkably similar organizational pattern. Larger cities are more likely than smaller cities to have adopted each of the organizational alternatives, (e.g., almost half -- 49% -- of the cities over 100,000 report they have an environmental department or agency, compared to 21% of the smaller cities). This may reflect a greater need for coordination in larger cities, or a greater organizational sophistication (see Tables 13, 14 and 15). Similarly the West is more likely to use each alternative than the other regions (with the South showing the lowest proportion of adoptions). For example, 31% of Western cities use a staff committee compared to 17% of the other cities. This differential between Western and other cities is the greatest for this alternative, and it may reflect the committee's utility in the environmental impact statement process that is required by California state law for public and private projects. But, in general, the larger accep- tance of these organizational structures in the West may stem from their greater concern with the environment noted earlier in the discussion on the ranking of the environmental issue. Metropolitan cities are more likely to use each of these alternatives than independent cities. For example, 34% of the central cities, 25% of the suburbs, and only 14% of the independent cities indicate the existence of an environmental department or agency. The fourth classification of cities used throughout this study -- the form of government, primarily mayor-council cities compared to council-manager cities -- also shows a consistent pattern. The mayor-council cities are slightly more likely than the council-manager cities to use each of the alternatives (the proportions are 24% and 18% for staff committies, 26% and 22% for environmental department, and 43% and 40% for a designated official respectively). This may be a function of the other factors noted above, such as geographic variations, rather than of the governmental form itself. 31 Environmental DeRartment Environmental departments or agencies are reported by 23% of the cities. The primary functions ascribed to them cover a wide range of activities, and vary somewhat depending on whether the environmental agency is a separate department or part of an- other department. For instance only 26% of the cities with a separate department reportsthat one of its primary functions is interdepartmental coordination, compared to 56% of the cities whose environmental agency is part of another department. One explanation for this may be that once a separate department is created, environmental activities are reorganized so that it exercises the authority previously held by several departments, thereby eliminating the need for interdepartmental coordination. But, an examination of the functions assigned to the departments suggests this is not the case. Comparing the functions performed by separate environmental departments and by environmental agencies which are part of other departments indicates that separate departments are more likely than the other type to per- form research (51% to 40%. respectively), to be responsible for program development (61% to 56%), and to have advisory functions (74% to 61%). They are less likely to be involved in planning (59% to 66%), inspection-7-10/. to 64%), enforcement (41% to 65%), environmental impact assessment (44% to 60%), and interdepartmental coordination. Based on this data separate environment departments do not appear to be exercising the same role as environmental agencies within existing departments. Most separate agencies are not performing a complete range of functions that might be expected of them (see Tables 16 and 17). The data also indicate that the existence of an environmental department or agency is a recent development. Sixty percent (60%) of the environmental departments have been created since the decade of the 1970's began. This tendency is strongest in the West (73%), and weakest among the central cities (32%) and the largest cities (37% of the cities over 250,000; see Table 18). Staff Committee The use of a staff committee which meets regularly to consider environmental matters specifically was reported by 20% of the cities. As noted earlier, it occurs most frequently in larger cities (32%), in metropolitan areas (24%), in the West (31%) and in the mayor-council form of government (24%; see Table 14). Designated Official A larger proportion of the cities report they have designated an official as having primary responsibility for environmental matters (40% of the cities, compared to 20% and 22% of the cities 32 reporting the use of an environmental department and staff committee respectively). In one fourth of the cases, it is the chief executive (either the mayor or the city manager) who has been designated. This is most likely to occur in the smaller cities--e.g., in 40% of the cities between 10,000 and 25,000, but only 14% of the cities between 25,000 and 50,000, and 9% in cities between 50,000 and 250,000, and not at all in cities above that size (see Table 15). The chief executive in smaller cities often must play a larger role because of his limited staff, but it is also true that the smaller scope and scale enable the chief executives to do this (see Table 19). An additional 9% of the cities utilize a staff member within the chief executive's office. Twelve percent (12%) of the cities report using the head of their environmental department or agency. This is more likely in the larger cities where the proportion of environmental department heads in cities over 500,000 who are the designated official is 50% 0 of 6). But, this proportion declines at virtually each size category until only 9% (or 8) of the 92 heads of environmental departments or agencies in cities between 10,000 and 25,000 are the designated official. Approximately one third of the cities reporting a designated official use a non-environmental department head. Some examples of the de- partment heads being used are: Planning, Health, PublIc Works, City Engineer, Community Development, Parks and Recreation, and Sanitation. Also, 12% use the environmental department head. An additional 10% list other officials such as a particular staff position within a relevant department, for example a designated member of the Planning Department staff, and several reply that a city councilman was the designated official. An additional 10% do not specify the official who is designated (see Table 19). The functions assigned to this official include both line functions such as carrying out operational responsibilities for environmental programs (51%) and supervising environmental activities (55%), and staff functions such as developing environmental programs (49%) and providing advice (68%). The functions assigned vary according to the designated official. The head of the environmental department is more likely to be responsible for each of these functions than are other departmental heads, a staff member in the chief executive's office, or even the chief executive himself. No clear relationship between the form of government and the type of functions emerges (see Table 20). The data for the counties show some similarities and some differ- ences. The three alternatives--an environmental department or 33 agency, a staff committee, and a designated official -- are used by 55%, 42%, and 48% respectively, according to the counties responding to our survey. In each case, these proportions are higher than for cities. The relationship between size and use noted for cities is not as clear, but the largest counties (over 500,000) report more use of these alternatives than the smaller counties,and the smallest group polled (50,000 - 100!000)'reports the least use. The West is still the most frequent user of the- staff committee and designated official; the West trails the Northeast by one percentage point in the use of the environmental department. The difference for metropolitan status is not as clear. Counties with professional administrators are more likely to use each of these methods, in contrast to the cities where the mayor-council cities are more likely to use them (see Tables 21, 22, and 23). Each of the functions of the environment department noted in the questionnaire is used proportionately more frequently by the counties than by the cities (see Table 24). This is also true for the functions assigned the designated officer (see Tables 25 and 26). CITIZEN BOARDS Environmental legislation of the 1970's has included a strong role for citizen participation in the Sovernmental process. For example, procedures for citizen participation play a key role in both the federal environmental impact statement process, as well as the implementation of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. Local environmental legislation has also been influenced by the precedent set in similar federal legislation. In part this reflects the attitudinal change that has occurred in the last decade relative to participation and responsiveness. But in part it reflects the nature of the environmental issue which is perceived as affecting the entire citizenry and not just a particular economic, racial, or regional group. The increased role for citizen participation is also a recognition of the strength and political influence of organized environmental interest groups. Citizen participation may take place through a variety of means such as public hearings, or laws facilitating citizen-initiated suits. Another means of citizen participation is through citizen boards or commissions. These groups may play a va'riety of manifest and latent functions, which can range from actual decision making (such as the role of many planning commissions and zoning boards) to only an advisory role. Since emphasis on the environment in local decision making is a relatively recent phenomenon, the survey focuses on whether cities are creating new citizen boards or commissions to deal with environ- mental issues or whether they are expanding the-scope of already existing boards. These alternatives are not exclusive, of course, and it is possible for a city to do both (or neither). 34 The survey of cities indicates that more cities are likely to expand existing boards (51%) than to create new ones (24%) (see Tables 27 and 28). Boards most likely to have their functions expanded to include environmental matters are planning commissions, as was reported by more than three-fourths of the cities (79%) (see Table 29). Many cities feel that the agencies involved in planning should include environmental considerations.in their work. Although this approach may not operate as well in developed cities where land use may be changing slowly, there does not appear to be any relationship between city size and the expansion of planning commissions. This expansion tends to occur more frequently in the West, which has more open space and a recent history of rapid growth. Only 30% of the cities who mentioned expanding any board use community development boards. In some communities these boards may be concerned with economic development, in which case there may be considerable conflict between growth or expansion oriented objectives and environmental protection or enhancement objectives. It is i-riteresting to note that the Western cities, which are most concerned with the environment, are the least likely to expand community development commissions (only 16% compared to 35% for the other regions); the South is most likely to do it (40%). Another board frequently expanded is the park and recreation commission; 48% of those expanding citizen board functions used them. Although environmental management extends beyond planning of parks and the beautification mission, many cities feel they blend well with a general concern for the environment. Other boards are also utilized. For example, 18% of the cities expanded the function of groups concerned with historic preservation. A number of other boards are mentioned, including conservation commissions, beautification boards, health advisory committees, and urban renewal and housing commissions. General advisory committees also frequentlytake on the additional area of the environment. When new citizen boards are created, they are given a wide range of functions. Yet in only 14% of the cities were they given any enforcement functions. More frequently their functions include org- anizing community programs (42%), environmental,education (56%), investigation of environmental problems (72%), and, of course, advising the decision makers (87%) (see Table 30). Some (21%) of the new boards are specialized--i.e., concerned with a specific environmental problem. Air pollution is the most frequent; 35. 61% of the specialized new citizen boards deal with air pollution (see Table 31). Specialized boards are more likely to be found in larger cities than smaller ones; 47% of the cities over 100,000 who have new citizen boards compared to 17% of the cities between 10,000 and 100,000 (see Table 32). The survey data indicate that the median size for these new citizen environmental commissions is seven, but the range extends from two to 250 (with a mean of eleven). The size of the board does not vary directly with the size of the city. The survey does not examine how these boards are appointed. But based on information furnished us, we know that the range of styles is great. Some communities attempt to make the board representative of the citizenry, while others try to ensure that all major local interests will have representation. Some cities use the same procedures for citizen environmental boards as they do for other citizen boards, while some cities have suspended residence or other requirements. Some cities require certain relevant scientific skills to be included, while others rely upon the citizens' interest in environmental matters. Regarding county efforts, 51% expanded existing committees, while 36% created new boards (compared to 24% for cities). The data for the counties, like that of the cities, indicate that the South is least likely of the four regions to create new citizen boards and that the West is most likely to expand previous ones. Unlike the city data which indicate that council-manager cities are less likely to expand or create citizens boards, the county data indicate that counties with an administrator (compared to those without an administrator) are more likely to create new boards, but less likely to expand old ones (see Tables 33 and 34). Counties, too, are likely to expand the functions of planning commissions -- 85% of the counties acknowledged expanding existing board functions (see Table 35). They are more likely than cities to create specialized boards; in fact, 49% of the new boards are listed as specialized. Air pollution again is the most likely area (60% of the new specialized boards), with solid waste the second most likely (54%). More county citizen boards are involved in enforcement than city boards; 27% compared to approximately half that -- or 14% -- for cities. This reflects their greater responsibility for regional enforcement of air and water quality standards and,subsequentiy, their greater use of specialized boards. County boards are less involved than the city boards in the other fun'ctions (see Tables 36, 37 and 38). Boards are slightly larger, with a mean of 19, with no apparent relation to the size of the county. 36 SUMMARY This section has examined local governments' use of several alternative organizational forms, specifically the creation of an environmental department, the use of a staff committee, and the practice of designating an official as having primary responsibility for environmental matters. In addition, the use of citizen advisory boards was analyzed. The responses from the cities indicate that the use of a designated official is most frequent (40%), and an environmental department or staff committee is used by only 23% and 20% of the cities respectively. Each alternative is more likely to be used by larger cities than small ones, by Western cities than those in other regions, by metropolitan cities than independent cities, and by mayor-council cities than council-manager cities. These alter- native organizations are assigned a variety of functions. Approximately half of the cities report they have expanded the func- tions of existing citizen advisory boards to include environmental matters. The unit most likely to have its scope expanded is the planning commission, although a variety of boards are being utilized by localities. Approximately one fourth of the cities have created new citizen environmental commissions; the latter have been encouraged in several states -- e.g. New Jersey, where environmental commissions are eligible for certain state funds. Citizen advisory boards perform a wide range of functions, although only 14% have enforcement functions. Approximately one fifth of the new boards are specialized, more frequently concerned with air pollution than any other environmental problem. 37 E. Utilization of Environmental Management Strategies Introduction One of the prime purposes of the survey was to lea@n what actions or strategies local governments have adopted to manage the environ- ment and to find out how they evaluate these alternative program elements. These two aspects are examined through a series of closed- ended questions about the the use and evaluation of the programs and an open-ended question asking for the "most important or innova- tive actions-or programs" the local government has undertaken in the last two years to improve or safeguard the environment. Data on the utilization of various techniques are analyzed in this section, while the data on the evaluations of the strategies are discussed in the following section.. The actions examined by the questionnaire and reported in this section include nine examples of'land use controls, such as flood plain. zoning, and another nine examples of additional controls potentially useful in promoting or safeguarding the environment, such as housing codes. In addition the local governments were asked to indicate whether or not they have: --adopted a conservation or environmental section in their master plan, --officially adopted, monitored,lor enforced environmental quality standards, --adopted a requirement for environmental impact statements, --imposed a moratorium based on environmental considerations, --used tax incentives or effluent-charges as a means to manage the environment, --initiated law suits regarding environmental matters. Additional data from a recent ICMA study concerning the use of inter- governmental service agreements by local governments is also analyzed. The utilization of these various techniques ranged from 1% of the cities reporting the use of an ordinance restricting non-return bottles, to 84% reporting ordinances concerning signs, refuse, and abandoned vehicles. 38 LAND USE CONTROLS The questionnaire lists nine examples of land use controls and asks the local governments to indicate whether or not they have been enacted in their community. Of those responding to the question- naire, enactment ranges from a low of 12% for marshland controls to abigh of 83% for "required installation of public facilities (e.g., sewers) by developers." The average enactment or utilization rate for the nine controls is 35% (see Tables 39-40). With the exception of some other types of controls examined (some of which could be considered land use controls), this utilization rate exceeds that of the other strategies. Land use controls apparently are a major approach for many cities in developing an environmental management strategy. Land use controls are also perceived by local government as highly effective in promoting and securing environmental quality (see the discussion of evaluations in the next section). It should also be noted that both of these findings agree with the re- sults of the EPA-funded survey of planning agency officials done by the Center for Urban and Regional Studies of the University of North Carolina.* The nine land use controls in rank order of cities reporting enact- of them (and county users reported in parentheses) are: 1. Required installation of public facilities (e.g., sewers) by developers--83% (51%). Western cities and central cities tend to have a higher proportion of adoption than other cities. The North Carolina report, which indicates 75% of their respondents have such requirements, reported a similar proportion of use. 2. Open space zoning--48% (36%). This is more frequently used by suburban cities than either central or independent cities; it is also most frequent in the West and North Central states and least likely to be used by the South. Since neither the questionnaire nor the cities elaborate on this too], it is not clear whether open space zoning refers to publicly owned land or privately held land. 3. Required dedication of land for public purposes (e.g., schools, parks) by developers--47% (29%). The utiliza- tion rates are similar to the use of,open space zoning; greater *Edward J. Kaiser, et al., Promoting Environmental Quality Through Urban Planning and Eo`ntrols7Chapel Hill: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, OTT-versity of North Carolina, 1973), Ch. IV. 39 use by suburbs, Western and North Central cities, least use by Southern cities. There are a number of mechanisms used including dedication of land, actual development of a park, and a substitute fi- nancial fee placed into a trust fund for park de- velopment and maintenance (some cities reported fees of $200-300 per unit for such purposes). 4. Flood plain zoning--45% (38%). The North Carolina study indicated a similar utilization rate--42%. This too] is more likely to have been adopted by larger cities, 56% of the cities over 100,000 re- porting It compared to 45% of the cities between 10,000 and 100,000 population, and by the cities in the Northeast and North Central regions of the country. A number of states are beginning to view flood plains as special zones requiring special treatment.* 5. Zoning fcr protection of natural resources or ecolo- gical systems--35% (33%). This device is most likely to be used by smaller cities and least likely to be used by central cities. But, it is not clear as to which natural resources or ecological systems are being protected, whether they are the specific object of the zoning, or whether their protection is a by-product of other zoning, 6. Architectural appearance--27% (11%). This tool to regulate the aesthetic element of the environment is most frequently used in the West (42%) and in suburban cities (35%). The North Carolina study, although it reports use by only 13% of their respondents, agrees with our findings of heavier use by non-principal cities in SMSAs (25%) compared to 8% by all others. 7. Historical preservation--23% (24%). This is a means of protecting only a small segment of the environment. Its use is heaviest in the larger cities (80% of the responding cities over 500,000 population, and 53% of cities over 100,000 population) which are usually Roger B. Hansen, "Legal Devices for Planning and Land Use Control: A Basic Outline," a paper presented to the National Conference on Managing the Environment, May 14-15, 1973 (Washington, D.C.). 40 older cities. The abundance of older communities in the Northeast also accounts for its higher use there. Central cities are twice as likely to have such controls as sub- urban cities. These findings are also confirmed by the survey of planning agency directors which found use by 25% of all cities, but 56% of central cities in SMSA's. 8. Growth limitations--23% (12%). A "new mood" of public resistance to the idea that growth is both inevitable and desirable and increased public support for little or no growth were reported recently by a federal task force on land use and urban growth.* In a number of communities, referenda and public elections in which growth has been either a direct or indirect issue have been won by advocates of growth restrictions. A number of methods to limit growth are available and are being utilized by local governments. According to the data, suburban cities are most likely to adopt such controls (29%), but support for it is consistent throughout almost all of the classifications of cities used in this study. 9. Marshland controls--12% (12%). Use of these controls is most common in the Northeast (24%, compared to 8% for the other regions) and in the larger ci.ties (19% of cities over 100,000 compared to 11% for the smaller cities). The survey of planning directors indicates use by 19% of them. A number of other land use controls are cited separately by the respon- dents. For example, several note the use of the Planned Unit Develop- ment concept requiring the developer to plan his project as a small community. Agricultural preserves--limiting the tax rate on agricul- tural land on the urban fringe thus keeping it off the marketplace for developers--is noted separately by some, also. A second question in the survey lists a potpourri of nine additional controls potentially useful in promoting or safeguarding environmental quality (see Tables 41-42). The controls in order of their rate of adoption by the cities (with the same data for counties noted in paren- theses) are: *The Use of Land: A Citizens' Policy Guide to Urban Growth (New York: Crow@_117197_3)- 41 I .Sign ordinance--84% (31%). its high utilization rate is almost uniform throughout all of the classifications of cities. The survey of planning directors also indicated considerable use--in 72% of the local governments. 2. Sanitation (refuse) ordinance--84% (49%). Its use is slightly more likely in larger cities (90% over 100,000), the South (93%), and the North Central area (87%), and slightly less likely in suburban communities (80%). Planning directors indicate use of "health/sanitation ordinances" in 78% of the communities. 3. Abandoned vehicle ordinance--84% (27%). The enactment of such ordinances is more likely to be found in larger cities (90%). It is least common in the Northeast, where only 76% of the cities report using such ordinances. 4. Housing code--80% (37%). Only six of the eighty-nine cities (7%) over 100,000 that responded to our survey do not indicate the use of a housing code. Use of codes is most common In central cities (96%) and least common in suburbs (74%); use is most likely in the South (89%). Planners in 73% of the agencies report its use. 5. Grading (excavation) ordinance--43% (24%). Its use is most common in the West (61%) and rarest in the South (26%), no doubt reflecting the topography of those areas. It is more likely to occur in suburban areas (53%) and least likely in independent cities (27%). The planning survey indicates use in 49% of the jurisdictions. 6. Noise ordinance--35% (8%). This control is apparently interpreted to refer to the nuisance-type regulations (i.e., those banning unreasonably loud noise) rather than the more complex one involving actual noise emission standards to be monitored and enforced. Twice as many cities report a noise ordinance than indicate the exis- tence of local officially adopted noise standards (see the discussion of environmental quality standards below). Noise ordinances are more likely in metro- politan cities (40% of the central cities and 38% of the suburbs, compared to 28% of the independent cities). The North Carolina report mentions 30% utilization and two and one-half times more use in SMSA's than other cities. 7. Tree preservation ordinance--31% (10%). With the excep- tion of the cities of over 500,000 and cities in the South (both of which had 20% utilization rates), the proportion of localities using these ordinances is 42 fairly constant across all categories of cities. The North Carolina report showed similar utilization rates with 37% reporting the preservation requirements as part of a set of subdivision requirements, and 25% reporting "tree ordinances." 8. Erosion control ordinance--16% (23%). Their use is most frequent in the West and Northeast (21%), as well as in suburban cities (21%). The North Carolina survey indicated a 25% utilization rate for "sedimentation/erosion controls." 9. Restrictions on nonreturnable bottles--I% (1%). Only fifteen cities and two counties report such bans. An additional ordinance which is noted separately by a number of respon- dents involves controls on burning. The North Carolina survey indicates that more than two-thirds (68%) of their respondents report using it. In summary, there are many land use controls that can be, and are being, brought to bear upon the problem of environmental protection or enhance- ment. Although many of them address only a portion of the problem, some of them address the basic roots of it. These controls, on the average, are more likely to be utilized than the other environmental programs discussed later in the remainder of this section. The greater utiliza- tion of land use controls may stem, in part, from the broad acceptance of the genre as traditional, and as a legitimate exercise of the 11police powers." In addition, local governments report they have ex- pertise-in land use and this no doubt contributes to the more extensive utilization of land use controls as a means of managing the environment. CONSERVATION (OR ENVIRONMENTAL) SECTION IN MASTER PLAN "The general plan--variously known as the comprehensive plan, master plan, guide plan, development plan--is perhaps the oldest of the tech- niques for guiding urban expansion in use today."* But it is only in recent years that there has been a movement to include a conservation element or environmental section in the plan, thus bringing environmental factors into sharper focus for the local decision-making process. It is part of an increasing philosophy that the comprehensive plan must go beyond merely the physical layout and consider the entire range of social F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., "Existing Techniques of Shaping Urban Growth," in H. Wentworth Eldredge (ed.), Taminq Megalopolis: Volume 11, @ow to Manage an Urbani.zed World (Garden City: Anchor ks-71777), P. 729. 43 values. Approximately one-fourth of the cities (27%) responding to the question of the master plan say it includes a conservation or environ- mental section; almost one-third (31%) say that it is under consideration (see Table 43). Of the four regions, inclusion of an environmental component is most common in the Northeast (40%), and most often cited as under consider- ation in the West (48%). The latter is due, in large part, to a California state law requiring local governments to include such an element in their plans., Metropol.itan cities are more likely than independent cities to have either an environmental section in their master plan or to be considering it. There is no apparent relationship between city size and inclusion of the environmental section. The data for the counties are very similar: 24% of those responding to the question have an environmental section in their master plan and an additional 43% have it under consideration. Southern-counties lag behind the rest of the country In adoption or consideration of such an element; 47% of them have neither adopted it nor are contemplating it (see Table 44). ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS "The establishment of standards Is a crucial step in any pollution control program," suggests J. Clarence Davies III in his book The Politics of Pollution.+ They provide goals, a measuring stick to 7v_aIZ_at_eprogress, and are a basis for determining what actions should be taken. Standards-- whether they are merely statements of qualitative goals, or whether they are quantitative references to environmental quality or to emmissions and effluents--can be valuable as goals or "marching orders," to use Davies' phrase, even if they are not enforced. But when the standards are moni- tored and enforced, their effectiveness increases sharply. The question in the survey does not ask about the nature or content of the standards, but does ask whether the "municipality (has] officially adopted, moni- tored, or enforced environmental quality standards" in the areas of air, noise, sewerage, or water. The rate of adoption varies sharply, as might be expected. With an increased role,for the federal and state governments in setting quality standards, many cities have dropped out California Government Code, Section 65302, amended in 1970. +J. Clarence Davies III, The Politics of Pollution (New York: Pegasus, 1970), P. 153. 44 of the field or have not entered it (and in some states they are pro- hibited from adopting their own standards). The cities' role is stronger and more independent, however, in those instances where they maintain their own systems, such as sewerage and water. The situation frequently is different in the case of air and noise standards. Air pollution is very often tackled on a broader geograph- ical base than the city--county and regional efforts are not unusual. Noise pollution on the other hand is more likely to be a problem in more developed areas (except where special land uses, such as airports, present a problem). The survey results reflect these conditions. Of the cities responding to the questionnaire, 53% report having adopted sewerage standards and 43% having adopted water standards. But only 18% have officially adopted air quality standards, and the same proportion report adoption of noise standards. Almost two-thirds of the cities (62%) have adopted standards in at least one of the four areas, with a progression from 57% of the smallest city size category to 100% for the largest (see Table 45). The data for counties indicate greater adoption of air quality standards-- reflecting their greater role--with 31% of the counties responding to the questionnaire saying they have adopted air quality standards. But otherwise the counties are less likely to have adopted standards, with 41% having adopted sewerage standards, 31% water, and 6% noise. Half of the counties have adopted standards in at least one of the four areas (see Table 46). The relationship between city size and air pollution noted earlier can be seen in this set of data, with the larger cities more likely to have adopted air quality standards. In specific numbers, 43% of the cities over 100,000 as compared to 16% for cities between 10,000 and 100,000 have adopted such standards. Central cities are more likely to report air quality standards (31%) than other cities. Cities in the North Central area are most likely to have adopted them (26%), while those in the West are the least likely (10%). The small number of Western cities which have adopted air quality standards is offset by the large proportion (70%) of Western counties who have. Noise standards show no relationship to city size, but they do to county size. They are most likely to have been adopted in the West and in metropolitan areas. Sewerage and water standards are more likely in larger cities than smaller cities, and occur most frequently In the South and in central cities. As noted above, standards may be helpful even if they are not enforced. But the data Indicate that there are a number of situations where 45 municipal standards are not being monitored or enforced. For instan-ce, the number of cities in which noise standards are "regularly monitored/ measured" is only 39% of the number that have adopted noise standards; seventy-six report monitoring but 196 report adopting noise standards. The ratios of monitoring to adoption are higher for the other types of standards. The proportions are 86% for air pollution standards, 87% for sewerage, and 93% for water (see Table 47). It should be noted, however, that it is possible for more cities to be monitoring standards than to have adopted them, because some states reserve standard setting to themselves but delegate enforcement to the local communities. This is illustrated in the county data which indicate sixty-one counties report adoption of air pollution standards, but sixty-seven report regular monitoring/measuring air pollution standards (see Table 48). There is no consistent pattern for this "monitoring ratio," although the smallest cities generally have the lowest ratios, and the central cities generally have the highest. The disproportionately low "monitoring ratio" for noise standards may be a realization that the caveats expressed in a recent NIMLO study are true. That study noted that (1) enforcement was expensive, (2) identification of the noise maker was difficult because of background noise, which if less than ten decibels lower than the noise being monitored cannot be distinguished, (3) the ordinance had to specify the distance at which noise was to be measured, (4) decibel limits had to be specified for different frequencies, and (.5) enforcement was difficult when noise re- sulted from several sources." Not only do a relatively small proportion of local governments who report having adopted noise standards indicate they regularly monitor them, but the nature of the enforcing department differs sharply from the other types of standards. For example, air pollution standards are frequently enforced by a local air pollution control agency, environ- mental protection agency, or health department. Only occasionally is enforcement responsibility assigned to the police, planning/zoning, or building departments. In contrast, noise pollution enforcement is most frequently the responsibility of the police, building, and planning/ zoning departments. It is also interesting to note that sewerage and water standards are most likely to be enforced by the department Stuart F. Lewin, Alan H. Gordon, and Channing J. Harteiius, Law and the Municipal Ecoloqy (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of k-unicipal Law Officers, 1970)., P. 75-76 as cited in Joseph F. Zimmerman, "The Munici- pal Stake in Environmental Protection," The Municipal Year Book 1972 (Washington, D.C.: The International City Management Association, 1972), P. 109. 46 responsible for operation of the service or facility, rather than an inde- pendent group such as the health department or environmental protection agency. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law on January 1, 1970. One of its provisions required the preparation of a statement assessing the environmental impact of major Federal projects. A number of states and cities have adopted their own "little-NEPAs" and have adopted similar requirements for environmental impact statements. One of these states Is California, which adopted its Environmental Quality Act in 1970. It requires that "all local governmental agencies shall make an environmental impact report on any project they intend to carry out which may have a significant effect on the environment." At first this was interpreted to mean only public projects; but the State Supreme Court in September 1972 ruled that it included any private projects which involved governmental action of other than a "ministerial" nature (i.e., if a city grants approval on a project for which it could have denied approval, then the project is subject to an environmental impact ripport). Subsequent guidelines spelled out in a thirty-five page document7' exempted small projects and also created a Negative Declaration procedure (i.e., if the project will not have a significant impact, a full report is not necessary). California's requirement results in a biased response to our survey of whether cities across the nation have adopted their own environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements. Table 49 indicates that 30% of all responding cities have some form of EIS requirement and 70% do not. Only 17% of the non-Western cities have an EIS requirement compared to 70% of Western cities. But when California cities are excluded, only 25% of the other Western cities have such a requirement. This is still larger than the other regions, but much closer to the proportion for the rest of the nation. For the entire nation excluding California cities, only 17% have an EIS requirement. The same pattern occurs for counties; 66% of the Western counties--most of which are in California--indicate a requirement for EIS's on public and private projects, compared to 12% of the counties on the other three regions of the nation. Similarly, three-fourths of the Western counties (75%) have some form of EIS requirement, while three-fourths of the other counties do not (see Table 50). Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 7-Sa-c7amento: State of California, Office of the Secretary for Resources, 1973). 47 Western cities with an EIS requirement for private projects--96% of which are California cities--are more likely to permit the private developer to write the EIS on private projects, than are the other regions (53% of the Western cities, compared to 30% of the cities in the other regions). Consultants to the municipality are involved in the EIS preparation process in approximately one-fourth of the cit4es (27% of all cities with EIS requirements, including 29% of the Western and 24% of the others, see Tables 51-52 for city and county data, respectively). Review is most likely to be carried out by the administrative staff (49%) and/or the city's legislative body (46%). Another 23% said the review was done by the chief executive. Only 13% listed citizens or citizen groups as reviewers. Generally the review process involves more than one step, and almost one-third of the respondents listed others as involved in the review process, with the planning commission most likely to be spec- ified (see Tables 53-54 for city and county data, respectively). MORATORIA When the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Friends of Mammoth vs Mono County case stipulating that private projecTs -were covered in the state's requirement for environmental impact reports before public action could be taken, most cities in the state were unprepared. Their first response was to place a moratorium on the issuing of building permits and similar actions. These moratoria are reflected in the data that indicate 26% of the cities in the West responding to that question have imposed a moratorium. This tool has been used elsewhere, too, inas- much as 17% of cities in other regions also have imposed some kind of moratorium for a total of 19% of all cities (see Table 55). In some cases it may be a temporary ban while a study or a facility (e.g., sew- age plant) is completed. In some cases, however, the cause stems from a more fundamental concern--such as part of a limited-growth (or no- growth) policy--and the ban may be for a longer period of time. Prohibiting building permits is the most common ban, imposed by 62% of the cities indicating a moratorium. Water and sewer connections have been stopped in 41% of these cities. Requests for rezoning have been prohibited in 36% of the cities (see Table 56). Obviously some cities imposed moratoria on more than one action. The counties' data show similar findings. Twice as many Western counties have imposed bans as have other counties (33% compared to 17% for a total of 21%). Similarly, building permits are most likely to be banned (52%), sewer-water connections are next (45%) and rezoning requests are involved in one-third of the cities (33%, see Tables 57-58). 48 TAX INCENTIVES AND EFFLUENT CHARGES One strategy that may be used to improve the environment is to stimulate business and industry through tax incentives and subsidies to take the action necessary to achieve the desired level of environmental quality. An alternate strategy to stimulate action involves effluent charges-- basically a penalty structure that places a charge on the polluter for discharging pollutants into the environment. There are many variations of the "carrot strategy" of tax incentives or subsidies as there are of the "stick strategy" of penalty charges. This survey of cities has disclosed that very few cities use the tax incentive-subsidy approach. Only 3% of the cities say they use it, and only an additional 1% claim it is under consideration (see Table 59). Counties report only slightly more frequent use or consideration--9% of the counties report its use and an additional 5% have it under consider- ation (see Table 60). Among the variations noted by the users are: agricultural preserves which reduce the taxes on agricultural land on the urban fringe for a period of years, providing the land is not developed but rather is left in agriculture or as open space; increased density permitted if a certain portion of the land is preserved as open-space (or for other specified programs such as soundproofing); exemptions from assessed valuations and property taxes for pollution-control devices; tax-free industrial revenue bonds to finance the acquisition and instal- lation of anti-pollution equipment; and waiver of park-fees where natural features of the landscape are protected. The reportedly low utilization rate may be due to a number of factors, including a misunderstanding of some of the tax-incentives and subsidies actually used by cities. Other factors might include a reluctance to give up any of its scarce revenues, as well as a reluctance to apparently reward a polluter. A lack of legal authority for local governments in the area of taxation may also account for its low utilization. The use of effluent charges or some other system of charges or some other system of taxes or fines that are related to the quality and quantity of discharges into the environment is more frequent. Almost a quarter of the cities (24%) say they use such a system, and another 5% report they have it under consideration (see Table 61). The data for counties are similar--22% report its use and 3% report it under consideration (see Table 62). But again these results may not accurately reflect the real utilization of this technique, as some cities apparently include any anti-pollution ordinance that involves a fine. Some of the variations being used by the cities and counties include: sewer charges based on BOD (biochemical oxygen demand), SS (suspended solids), and/or overstrength wastes, and a separate fee for industrial waste discharge. The data indicate that larger units for 49 government are more likely than smaller ones to use it. City data ,indicate the West is least likely to use it, but county data show the most frequent use in the West. INITIATING LAW SUITS The courts are playing an increasing role in policy making in the United States, and the area of environmental protection is not an exception. Suits have been filed by citizens, by corporations, and by governments. They have been filed by those acting in the name of environmental protection and by those ac.ting in the name of economic freedom or other values. Cities have been the initiator of suits on a number,of occasions; 10% of the cities answering the question ln@icate that they have filed a major legal suit on an environmental matter in the last two years. There is a tendency for Northeastern and North Central cities to use this technique more than those in the West or South.. The latter is least likely to have filed suit (see Table 63). The data for the counties indicate a simi.lar utilization rate, but some differences in use patterns. Some 14% of the counties have initiated suits. But unlike cities, there is a clearer difference between the largest size category of counties and the smallest with the former more than four times as like ly to file a suit. In our sample of cou inties, Southern counties are most likely to have filed suits and those in the the Northeast are least likely (see Table 64). The suits show a wide range of subject matter. Some suits are designed to take action against polluters, while others seek to prevent pollution by halting a project. In several instances there have been attempts to force other governmental agencies to apply existing law (e.g., prevent approval of a project before an EIS could be produced, or before a master plan could be completed). In at least one case, the suit repre- sented an attempt to gain the authority necessary to safeguard the environ- ment in the future. The subject of the suit was the right of the city to adopt,and enforce landfill regulations, disputing the claim that the state had pre-empted the field. LOCAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS The strategies examined in this section thus far-have involved a program of action undertaken by a city or a county within its own'ju 'risdiction. However, many cities and counties are cooperating with others in a variety of intergovernmental programs to safeguard and enhance the environment@., Since a survey of the cities had been taken less than a year earlier, 50 this surve'y purposely omits reference to this,strategy of managing the environment. That study, conducted in May 1972 by the International City Man 'agement Association and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, indicates that the utilization rate of service agreements with other local governments ranges from 2% 'to 12% of the cities, depending on the type of environmental function invol'ved.* Cities are most likely to use service agreements with other units of local government for sewage disposal (12%), water supply (9%), solid waste disposal M), and planning (7%). The data, as recalculated from that study and presented in Table 65, show larger cities (over 25,000 population) are more likely to use agreements than smaller cities (2,500 to 25,000) for nine of the twelve environmental services. Sm'al.ler cities are more likely to use them only for'water dittri'bution services (5% compared to 3%) and zoning and subdivision control 0% compared to 2%). Differences generally were quite small, one exception being sewage disposal, which shows larger cities more than twice as likely to use agreements as smaller cities. One other pattern emerges from these data. Of those using agreements, the smaller cities are more likely than the larger cities to turn to other cities and counties (on nine of the twelve environmental functions) while the ]a rger cities utilize special districts and COG's or other regional units.more often than small cities (On seven of the twelve environmental functions, each type of government). The study also indicates that the factors most frequently cited as inhi- biting agreements are limitations on independence of actions (48% of the responding cities which listed any reason), inequitable apportionment of cost (22%), ahd adverse public reaction (9%). The reason most fre- quently cited for the use of agreements is the desire to take advantage of economies of scale. The data presented in this section is recalculated from: Joseph F. Zimmerman, Urban Data Service, Intergovernmental Service' Agreements for Smaller Municipalities -(Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association, 1973), and Joseph F. Zimmerman, "Meeting Ser- vice Needs Through Intergovernmental Agreements," in The Municipal Yearbook 1973'(Washington, D.C.i International City Management Associati,on, 1973), pp. 79-88 51 I IMPORTANT OR INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS; OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES In addition-to the closed-ended questions reviewed above, the . question- naire also asks the local,governments to indicate '.'the most important or innovative actions or programs ... undertaken in the last.two.year,s to improve or safeguard the environment." Limited resources prevent an analysis of all of these open-ended responses. But a randomized selection of seventy-five actions indicates that a wide range of activity is deemed., to.be "important or innovative" by local governments. While some may regard@their selections a 's minor or.mundan6, the.l.ist does serve to indicate theInt6rests and activities, of local governments. Several of the respondents report intergovernmental or regional activi- ties--e.g., a contract for regional wastewater treatment, intergovern- mental contracts for solid waste management,,joint construction-and operation of-an.incinerator, and the creation of a regional anti-pollution authority. Several cities consider some of the actions discussed earlier in this report as among their most important or innovative actions--e.g., several list their environmental impact statement requirements, and several others list the creation of citizen advisory committees. Actions to solve the solid waste problem are noted by many-of the local governments, for example, compaction of solid waste, stopping open- burning, removal of junk cars, recycling programs, a new incinerator, use of a sanitary landfill to replace an open dump., and free collectJon of household trash and garbage. Another area of concern is that of sewage. -improved sewage tr eatment facilities is the.actioncited by the largest number of local governments in this randomized sample. Related actions-include references to sewage studies, including research into.groundwater recharge of treated sewage effluent, secondary treatment of sewage effluent,.and the-extension.of sewers.. Several cite improvements in the,stormwater'system, e.g..,- ponding and percolation of some stormwater. A number of local governments list actions concerning land use controls. For example, the development or revision of the land use plan, subdivi-sion, requirements, design standards ordinance, the adoption of an architec- .tural theme, and the adoption of a filling and dredging,ordinance. Several list their purchase of land for open-space or parks, while one cites limitation,on the use of a beach area. Others list aesthetic improvements such as. programs for preventive maintenance,, tree planting, and tree pruning. Several local governments specify the development of noi.se ordinances including the setting of standards for contracts for services and, 52 equipment. Air pollution p .rograms include establishment of air moni- tori'ng programs, reduction of emissions from a power. generating plant, and the use of propane in police vehicles. Educational programs such as an environmental arboretum and the annual observance of Earth Day are also -listed. SUMMARY A large number of techniques or strategies are available to local governments involved in environmental management. Strategies derived from areas of traditional authority or operation are more likely to be used than others. For examp le, land use controls'have been considered a traditional exercise of police powers and have been adopted (even if not always rigorously enforced) by American local governments for many decades. Land use control's are the tools most Iikely to be used by local governments, with some individual techniques being used by almost half (or more) of the units. Similarly, adoption of environmental quality standards is much more likely for systems operated by'the local government. Cities are more likely to have 6dopted'standards for sewerage (53%) and water (43%) than for air (18%) or noise (18%). Similarly sewerage and water standards are more likely to be' enforced,by the city, usua,lly by the operating department. Effluent charges or a penalty structure in which busi ness and industry pay for discharging pollutants into the environment is more frequently used, according to the respondents, than a strategy of tax incentives or subsidies.' The former is reported used by approximately one-fourth of the ci,ties, While only 3% report the use of tax incentives or subsidies. The strategy of local governments requiring environmental impact statements is a new phenomenon stemming from the federal precedent established in NEPA passed in 1.969. Approximately 30% of the cities report a local,EIS requirement, but when we exclude California cities as atypical (since they are required by state law to use an EIS process for local decisions on public and private projects), only 17% of the-other cities use this strategy. Moratoria'have,been imposed by 19%%of all cities res'ponding to the.survey, many of which are California cities which imposed moratoria after as state Supreme Court decision on-the applicability of the EIS requirement caught virtually all of the cities by surprise. Excluding the Western cities, only 17% of the cities surveyed have used moratoria.' The practice of initiating law suits is still a 1. relatively rare.practice-- having been reported by only-10% of the cities. 53 The use of intergovernmental service agreements for environmental management is also relatively uncommon, as only 2% to 12% of the cities report an agreement, depending on the environmental function involved. 54 F. -Evaluation of Envi.ronmental Management Strategies Introduction The previous sections of this report have examined local governmental utilization of a variety of environmental management strategies and.some alternate organizational forms. The data from the survey of cities over 10,000 and counties over 50,000 indicate varied utilization of the different alternatives. For example, almost every city indicated some land use control, but only a handful reported a program involving tax incentives. The data also indicate that utilization rates for different classifications of cities vary considerably, as well.' This knowledge can be helpful to those interested, in developing plans for environmental management programs. Other information useful to local officials includes what local govern- ments and others think of the alternate strategies and organization forms. If most local government officials believe a particular strategy is effective, perhaps officials who view that too] negatively Silght want to re-include it on a list of potential techniques. But even more important are the evaluations of those who have used the techniques. If,the perception of users and non-users were similar then the analysis need not differentiate between the two groups. A closer look at the respondents' evaluations of the effectiveness of the tools indicates a significant difference between the perceptions of users and non-users. One example of very different perceptions is use of moratoria where 32% of non-users term it effective, 29% ineffec- tive, and the remainder neutral. (Note that an "index" score con- structed by ignoring the neutrals and subtracting the other two proportions from each other was only three.) On the other hand, users considered moratoria decidedly effective; 62%-rate it as an effective' tool, while 15% view it as ineffective (for an index score of 47). A comparison of ranks of effectiveness assigned to each alternative based on their index scores places moratoria last when all respondents are used as the basis; but a ranking based on the index scoee for each alternative's users places four other strategies below it. In another example, 14% of all of the responding cities consider tax incentives an ineffective technique, and only about half (54%) view it as effective (for an index score of 40); but no user of tax incentives considers it ineffective, and almost three-fourths rate it effective rather than neutral, for an index of 72. In all but three cases analyses of evaluations of a strategy by local governments are based on the responses of users of that alternative. The three exceptions are: intergovernmental and regional arrange- 55 ments, land use controls, and environmental quality standards. Evaluations of intergovernmental and regional arrangements use the data from all respondents because our survey'does not ask about its utilization but rather relies on data from an earlier study of service agreements. Land use controls are used in some form by almost every local government, and so.data -from a1l.local govern- ments are @used. The situation concerning environmental quality standards is quite complicated because some states permit local governments.to adopt and enforce standards, other states set stan- dards but delegate enforcement to the loca.] governments, still other states have pre-empted the field entirely, and some cities report setting standards but turning.-to,state agencies for enforce- ment. The strategies are discussed in the following"sequence: first, the three organizational alternatives to manage the envi-ronment in the order of preference by city "users" -- a single environmental agency, use of citizen advisory- boards, and intergovernmental and regional arrangements; then seven alternative action strategies in the order of preference by city "users" -- land use controls, environmental quality standards, tax incentives, penalty ch 'arges, moratoria, environmental impact statements, and law suits. ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY The concept of a single environmental agency is viewed as an effective way of organizing to promote and secure environmental quality. Its evaluated effectiveness index score is 70, with only 6% of the city users who offer an evaluation labeling it as in- effective compared to 76% calling it effective (see Table.67). The index score for non-users of 47 is considerably lower o.r,less favorable. Large city users view their organizat 'ional form as more,,effective than do those from smaller cities (composite index score for.ci-ties over 100,000 is 83 compared to 68 for cities below that size). Mayor-council cities view it more favorably, (78Ythan manager- council cities (70). Counties with an index of 7@ -- 79% effective, 5% ineffective -- consider it more effective than cities (see Tablq...68). Federal respondents view it as very' 'effe,ctive (index of 88), but state respondents are more negative 0 .ndex of 38). A single environmental agency is one answer to th 'e f'ragmentation of respons,ibilities often found within,the city's governmental structure. It can serve as the developer or,coordinator of a com- plete plan to protect the environment, thus focusing res,ponsibility while avoiding conflicting (or duplicating),programs. Several. . governmental jurisdictions have conside 'red it or adopted it..in, order to change their influence structure e.g..-, br.oadening the focus of 56 their environmental program by reducing the influence of a mo-re traditional departmen 't such as health or public works. An attempt to change traditional lines *of communication-and influence can be expected to cause opposition,and conflict, thereby reducing effe@c- tiveness. A single environmental agency is.likely to play the .role of an advocam. Although this may be useful and desirable, it may not be if other departments assume that the-environment is not their concern and act accordingly. The administrative style of some chief executives-favors cooperation and consensus rather than the advocacy or adversary process. Further, the advocate role is likely to bring the department into conflict with other city departments which may be major polluters. The result is that a new single environmental,agency needs the strong support of the chief- executive. Yet a singte environmental agency, with its greater public visibility, may also be useful a's a demonstration of a city's commitment to environmental protection as well as a rallying point for environmental interest groups. For' these reasons it may be considered effective by many users. CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD Perhaps the most interesting finding about the evaluation of citizen advisory boards is that those commu Inities which create new-boards generally rate-citizen advisory boards more effective than those who expand ex4sting bod*ies. Although the' evaluation question addresses the-.effectiveness of citizen boards in general, ques- tions pertaining to util*ization addresses' the alternatives of creating a hew group or expanding an existing one. These are not exclusive categories. A number of cities have done both:, since the environmental problem is frequently fragmented with tingle-purpose organizations. Examination of -the data for all those who have created a new advisory group shows an evaluated effectiveness index of 49, based-,dn'61% rating citizen advisory groups as effective and 12% viewing them as ineffective (see Table 68). This represents a sharp contrast to those who-have:expanded an existing group. Their index score for citizen advisory groups is only 27, with 47% rating them effective and 20% 'Considering-them ineffective (see Table 69). Between non-users, who always rate a strategy lower than users, and those using the perce.ived less'effective means of expanding existing boards, the index score of all cities is quite-low. The index score of 22 is second lowest of all of the strategies@evaluated. But this low score i,s comparable to the results of the North Carolina study which found that only 17% ra 'ted'the general too] of "citizen parti- cipation" as very effective in achieving environmental quality, while 45% rated it moderately effective, .38% considered it only slightly effective, and 2% labeled it not effective. 57 The patterns of perceived effectiveness are similar for the two groups of users, with users of expanded boards less enthusiastic* in all but one category of cities. Western cities have the lowest index score s; independent cities rate the boards as more effective than do metropolitan cities. Cities with city managers are more critical of the effectiveness of citizens advisory boards than those using a mayor-council form of government (they are also less likely to use them). Larger cities wh 'lch have created new citizen boards tend to see them as more effective than do smaller cities, but there Is no consistent relationship between these variables when the data for cities using expanded boards were examined. The data for the counties show a much smaller difference between the two groups of users with the Index scores being 45 and 41 for those creating new boards and those expanding existing ones, respectively (see Tables 70-71). State and federal respondents, index scores are consistent with the cities and counties, total-- ling,47 and 34 respectively. With respect to the effectiveness of citizens'advisory groups, it is clear that the effectiveness of these groups depends on the functions assigned to them, the personnel appointed to them, and the amount and quality of staff support given to them. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS The evaluated effectiveness index score based on the responses of all cities evaluating the strategy of intergovernmental and regional arrangements is only 46 (with 59% of the cities rating this strategy as effective and 14% considering it ineffective). There is rela- tively little variation among the cities (see Table 72). Although many observers feel that intergovernmental and regional arrangements are valuable in the area of environmental protection, to handle such matters on a broader geographical basis, there are sufficient problems in the cities' view to minimize its effectiveness. Perhaps the fear of limitati'on upon independence of action (either a desire to do more than the regional standards or program, or a desire to do less) and the problems of apportioning costs (noted by cities as factors inhibiting the use of service agreements -- one form of intergovernmental arrangements) detract from such advantages as efficiency and uniformity. Counties reported similar overall findings, with an index score of 52, base@,on 64% of the counties rating this strategy as effective and 12% viewing it as ineffective. There are larger variations between categories of counties -- e.g., the index for Southern counties is lowest with 31, compared to the highest index score of 79 for North 58 Central counties.. Metropolitan counties are less enthusiastic about this strategy (index score of 46) than non-metropolitan counties. This may reflect a greater, homogeneity within the non-metropolitan counties encouraging the use of intergovernmental arrangements, while the conflicts between central cities and suburban cities within metroooliian' ar'eas create problems and doubts about the effectiveness of such,cooperative measures (see Table 73). Both state and federal respondents see it as more effective than do the local governments, withjndex scores of 59 and.61, respectively. LAND USE CONTROLS Land use controls are perceived by the cities as the most effective of the seven action strategies suggested to them for promoting and securing environmental quality. Ninety percent of the cities rated it very effective or effective, while only 3% rated it as ineffective or very ineffective. This results in an evaluated effectiveness index of'87. All classifications of cities rated it highly, although there were some differences. The very largest cities (over 500,000) were a little less enthusiastic about this strategy (index of 72), but in general there is no relationship to size. Similarly, Southern cities (index of 83) and central cities (84) were less enthusiastic than other cities. Council-manager cities viewed land use controls as more effective than do mayor-council cities with scores of 89 and 80 respectively (see Table 74). The counties' index score 81 also is very high based on 86% rating it effecti.ve while only 5% consider in ineffective. County data also show.that Southern, metropolitan and non-administrator counties are less, enthusiastic than other types of counties (see Table 75). State and federal respondents also view land use controls as effective programs, with index scores of 78 and 75 respectively. Although the su,rvey did not ask respondents the reasons for their evaluatJon, it appears that Southerners are more concerned about limitations upon "free enterprise" and are more likely to be critical of apy'"'controls." The largest units of government may see land-use controls as of less value to them because of the relative unavailability of land for development and because of the greater complexity of their environmental problems. The generally high evaluation of land use controls may reflect the importance they attach to land use problems, their extensive utilization of land use controls, and the availability of expertise in these matters, rather than an evaluation of the effective- ness.of the controls themselves. It should also be noted that the effectiveness of land use controls depends upon their enforcement. Many critics of land use plans, for example, have observed that amendments, special use permits, and 59 variances are frequently granted in response to pressures-on parti- cular cases without any real reconsideration of the entire plan. One state respondent in commenting about the utility of local government land use controls in promoting and securing environmental quality noted its criticalness by saying, "This is where the bal*lgame is lost." ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS The use of environmental quality standards Is an accepted method of securing a better environment. Its evaluated effectiveness index score is 73, ranking it only behind land use controls. More than three-fourths of the cities (77%) rated it effective, and only 4% labeled their use ineffective (see Table 76). Central cities are more likely to have adopted environmental quality standards and are also more likely to have rated them as an effec- tive strategy (index score of 76 compared to 72 for suburbs and 71 for independent cities). The West (score of 76) and manager-council cities (75) rated them as more effective than did comparable cities. There is no-consistent relationship to city size, despite a tendency for larger cities to be more likely than smaller cities to have adopted standards in at least one of the four environmental areas examined. Counties view the effectiveness of standards even more favorably, with an index score of 82; 85% rate it as effective and only 3% call them ineffective. This index score is one point higher than that given to land use controls. Western counties, like Western cities, rated them as more effective than do other regions; 88 compared to scores of 72 to 86 for the other three regions (see Table 77). The federal respondents viewed standards as very effective (index score of 94) which may reflect their own activity. States view local standards less favorably (index score of 59), perhaps reflecting a reluctance to-see local governments enter into the field already filled with state and federal activity. The effectiveness of environmental quality standards in acheiving environmental quality depends, in part, upon their enforcement. As was noted earlier in the section on the utilization of standards, a considerable number of local governments have adopted a set of environ- mental standards but have not enforced them. Although even unenforced standards may be useful as a goal, their effectiveness rests upon enforcement. A considerable proportion of cities raised the problem of unrealistic standards especially considering limited resources to remedy any deficiencies as one of their@complaints against the states and federal government. 60 TAX INCENTIVES None of the cities which have used and evaluated tax incentives consider them:to'be ineffecti-ve; almost three-fourths of them (72%) said they are effective, resulting in an index of 72 (see Table 78). This contrasts with the views of non-users, whose index is only 40 (54% rating it effective, and 14% ineffective). Counties view the use of tax incentives less enthusiastically--an index score of 54; with only 8% of the users seeing it as ineffective compared to 62% rating it effective. But this is still relatively high compared to the index scores given other strategies; and it is still higher than that given by non-using counties, index score of 45 (see Table 79). Its limited use precludes any further analysis of sub-sets of users. Federal and state respondents evaluate tax incentives similarly to city users with index scores of 72 and 74 respectively. The reluctance of non-users 'to see it as an effective strategy, as noted earlier, may be due to It being interpreted as a reward for pollution, by both city officials as well-as the public. A shortage of revenue and of authority.to adopt such a strategy may also be factors. But subsidies as an incentive to action is not a new principle; and they can be effective if they are used to stimulate action thatotherwise would not be taken, especially since economic justification is offered as a rationale for continued pollution. PENALTY CHARGES The survey question asked for an evaluation of penalty charges as a strategy,to promote and secure environmental quality; this was done in an effort to get local evaluation of the concept of effluent charges, or as the question stated "penalty (fine or tax) structure in which business and industry pay for discharging pollutants directly into the environment." It is not clear that the cities responding all have the same refe - rence, as some may be thinking of service charges as effluent'charges. "Penalty charges" receives an evaluated effectiveness index score of 59 from those indicating use in the earlier question; two- thirds (67%) rate the strategy as effective, while only 8% consider it ineffective (see Table 80). Non-users give it a lower index score of 45; 60% effective and 15% ineffective. There is no consistent relationship between size of the city and the evaluation of this strategy by its users. The North 61 Central cities,view it most favorably (69) while those in the West are least favorably disposed (47). Independent cities rate it more favorably (65) than cities in metropolitan-areas (57). Cities with city managers view it as more effective (62)' than those with the mayor-council form of government (52). The data for counties are unusual in this instance.as non-users give it a,higher index score than users (41 and 32'respectively). Fewer users view it as effective (44%) compared to 56% of the non-users (see'Table 81). State respondents give it an evaluated effectiveness index score of 59, while it is 46 for federal respondents. The use of 'effluent charges has been praised as a device that treats pollution as a cost thereby introducing its abatement into the decision making process of the businessman who is trying to maintain an edge over his competitors. It also may serve as a source of revenue for a governmental environmental protection program. But others have labeled it as a "license to pollute," and this image detracts from its utility. Some critics have also argued that the costs of the penalty charges will merely be passed on to-the consumer and the effect upon the business may be minimized depending on the nature of its competition. The strategy of.pen6lty charges has also been critized by'those who hope to evolve change through cooperation. MORATORIA As noted in the introduction to this section, those who have imposed a moratorium rate it as a much more effective strategy than those who have not'used it. The evaluated effectiveness index score is 47 for users, but only 3 for non-users. The propor- tion rating it-as an effective strategy is approximately twice as high for users compared to non-users, and non-users are about twice as likely to rate it as an ineffective tool compared to the users. Among users, 62% rated it effective and 15%*in- effective, compared to 32% and 29% respectively for non-users (see Table 82). The county data reflect a similar gap between users (index score of 48, with only 4% rating it ineffective) and non-users (index score of 3, with one-third considering it ineffect'ive;.see Table 83.) Federal and state respondents reflect non-users to a degree with index scores of 16 and 39 respectively. 62 There were some differences among users, however. The West and North Central users are least likely to rate it as an effective too] (39 and 40 respectively), while the South and Northeast view it more favorably (56 and 55 respectively). Central cities consider them more effective (57) than do the suburbs (47) o'r independent cities (33); mayor-council cities rated it as more effective (55) than do council-manager cities (44). Although moratoria, may be considered anladmisslion that previous planning or other programs have been ineffective, their use . . may prove valuable if the delay is used to analyze alternatives and to develop effective programs, rather than merely postponing the resolution of the problem. -Their use frequently occurred as the result of a crisis, and the use in those circumstances is probably least open to criticism., Its use as a permanent or long-range solution may.create.strong criticism of the local government by those adversely affected. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS A city's experience with-environmental impact statements (EIS) may stem from Federal or state law 'or from their own require-. ment. The focus of the report is on local governments' actions in the area of environmental management. The evaluated effectiveness index of this group of users is 44, with 59% viewing the EIS process as an effective strategy, while 15% consider it ineffective (see Table 84). Those familiar only w*ith the federal EIS requirement or who have not been involved at all with the EIS have an index score of 25. The West stands out as the.region which views the EIS process as most effective--its index score is 58, with only 10% of the users considering it ineffective. Non-Western cities give it an index score of only 19. County data are similar. The index score for all users is 31 (51% considering the statements effective and 20% ineffective), but Western users give them an index score of 48 (see Table 85). The North Carolina study indicates that 18% of all of their re- spondents rate them very effective, 45% as moderately, 30% slightly, and 7% not effective. Federal officials view impact statements favorably (index score of 55), but states view them less favorably with an index score-of 17, based on only 39% calling the EIS process effective. 63 The relatively low effectiveness rating for the EIS process (only one other strategy ranks lower for city users) may stem from a number of factors--especially considering the higher rating given by Western users who-are primarily California units of government. Some of the criticisms of the federal process may have influenced the citi-es' evaluations, while some of these criticisms*mayialso be applicable to the EIS process required. by local governments. These criticisms include problems of cost and delay, compounded by a lack of technical expertise to accurately and objectively determine the envi.ronmental impact of proposed projects. In many instances the EIS process has empha- sized procedural requirements more than substanti-ve content.* For instance a 'review of federal EISs through January 1972 noted that although two-thirds of the projects had statements indicating adverse environmental impacts for the project, most projects were not changed as a result of the analyses.+ The General Account-ing Office's review of the federal process noted that inadequate technical analyses, inadequate review of the statements, and inadequate consideration of alternatives marred the utility.of the EIS procedure.* Yet the EIS process has also been viewed as contributing to the decision making process by including environmental impact con- siderations as an explicit input into the decision making process. And when the process is working as intended, these inputs occur at the planning stage, i.e., early enough to make a difference. Similarly, the impact of the EIS process is likely to be felt in other areas of decision making-as well, as a result of open- ing up the enti're process to public participation, an&to the special consideration of impacts of an action upon the social environment. -The need to develop or review EISs has forced a number of agencies to expand their own expertise in the environment field. It has also encouraged greater coordination among.agencies both within a government and between levels of government. And, of course, the EIS process has fulfilled its manifest function of killing some potentially environmentally- damaging projects. *See Lyle J. Sumek, "Environmental Impact Statements: More Myth than Reality,'' in An Anthology of Selected Readin@s for the - . National Conference on Managing the Environment (Washington,D.C., 1973),for a summary of strengths and weaknesses of1the federal EIS process. +This study is cited in Frank Kreith, "Levels of Impact," 'Environment XV (January/February 1973), p. 30. +General Accounting Office, Adequacy of Selected-Environmental Impact Statements Prepared_Under NEPA of 1969 (Report to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 1972), p.,64. One of-the improvements that the state of Ca0fornia has made to the process is the requirement that mitigating measures be discussed whenever adverse environmental impacts are noted. Future developments.arelikely to "increase the significance of ,the EIS process, As one observer notedi the first generation of suits were concerned with Whether.6n EI'S.was required; the second generation con,side,red whether the EIS was adequate or merely a pro-forma exercise; the third generation will address the problem of whether the government ha's ignored the EIS.* Another development' that may be on the horizon is the application of the EIS process to.the 'comprehensive plan itself.+ As the EIS process becomes an institutionalized part of the decision making process, its weaknesses and inconsistent applications will be modified; and as time goes on more cities will view the EIS process as an effective means to promoting and securing environmental quality. LAW SUITS The use of,law suits is evaluated as the least effective of the alternate environmental management strategies by the cities, with an index score of 40 (the counties ranked it hi ,gher, with an index score of 50). Yet it is worth noting that this alter- native is considered ineffective.by only 19%, while more than three times as,many cities (or 59%) rate it as an effective strategy (see Tables 86 and 87). Federal respondents view it more favorably (index of 55) than do states (index of only 23). Among the users of this strategy, large cities rate it as more effective than small cities. In fact, all eight of the cities over 100,000 that indicate they have initiated a major legal sui-t regarding environmental matters in the last two years rate it as very effective or effective. Central cities, without regard to their size, are,also very enthusiastic with an index score of 92. Southern users rate the strategy as.more effective than those from other regions (an index score of 67 for Southern users compared to,a.composite index score of 37 for -the other regions). Mayor-council cities view the use of law suits More favorably than council-manager cities (index scores of 66 and 34 respectively)., *Comments of Nicholas C. Yost, Deputy Attorney General of C,alifornia, at the National Conference on Regional Environmental Management,. San Di,ego, February 1973. +Comments of,Robert C. Einsweiler at the National.Conference on Managing the Environment, Wash,ington, D.C@, May 1973, summarized in the Final Conference Report fo.r the.Conference. 65 SUMMARY Analysis of the evaluations of-alternate strategies for environmental management indicates that although the relative effectiveness of the alternatives varies, each strategy is'more likely to be considered effective than ineffective. Another finding Is that although non-users are more likely to be positive than negative, a.n evaluated effectiveness index based upon the differe nce between'these rat;ngs given by users and non-users indicates that users generally rate strategies as more effective than do non-users. A number of strategies that'would appear to be evaluated as relatively Ineffective if the evaluations of all of the cities were used, actually are evaluated as quite effective by users of the technique. The evaluated effectiveness index scores for cities'are summarized in Table 88. Since a city may use.one strategy but not another, one cannot claim that the highest index score for any category of cities indicates its most effective strategy. But the table does indicate the evaluated effectiveness score for each strategy for each category of city users. 66 G. Factors Conxributing to D'evelopmerit of-Environmental Management. Programs. The discussion of the-utilization of alternati ve organ.iz@tional and action strategies for environmental management indicates a wide range of use among the local governments. One'tac'tor in- fluencing- -the adoption of a strategy is the ev 'a.luation of itI by users. The success (or failure) of a program has astrong impact upon its adopt,ion elsewhere. But what general factors do local governments see contributing to the development.,6f environmental management programs in their communities? This question 'along with the views.of our state and federal 'res'pofidents,,,,is-,,tonsidered in this section. When local government officials are asked, "What-are the major factors contributing to your municipality developing environmental management programs?", they see their own role as "concerned municipal officials" as crucial. Th .ree-fourths (75%) of the cities cite this factor--more than any other factor. S.imilarly two-thirds (67%) of the counties claim it, placing it as their second most frequently indicated factor (see Tables 89 'and 90). This may actually reflect the role of the decision maker in this complex policy area, but it may also represent a form of "self-congratula- tion." It is not insignificant that state and federal officials are much less likely to mention the role of local officials. Only 42% of the state officials,indicate it as a major'factor placing it as their sixth (of eight) most frequent response; and federal officials place it fourth, with 61% citing-it as a major factor. Officials at all three levels of,government recognize and acknowl- edge the stimulus of state and federal requirements to the development of environmental management programs at the local level. Two-thirds (68%) of the cities citeit (their second most frequent response). Counties (77%),, state offiuials (84%), and federal officials (89%)-are more likely to cite this factor @han- any other,., State--and,f6deral officials are also likely-to see.a.strong role for "state.or federal financial incentives or assistance;" 84% of the state and 78% of,the federal respondents cite this factor. But "local officials place it only fifth among the eight factors,.with 38% of the cities and 51% of the counties listing it, This gap perceived by.local governments between these two roles of the state and federal goverhments--i.e., promulgating requirements, and assist -ing local governments to meet those reqUi'rements--can easily lead to discontent and criticism of the state and federal governments. And in fact;such-complaints are cited by,the local governments in response to several questions,*as discussed later in,this report. 67 The perception of the contribution of state and federal financial assistance is not shared equally-by all of the local governments. Larger cities and counties are more likely to mention it than smaller ones. Southern cities, but not 'counties, are also more likely to mention it thanrlocal governments in other regions. The role of active environmental groups and public support in general are also cited by large proportions of the respondents. Half of the cities cite general public support (placing it third) and 44% acknowledge the role of active environmental groups (placing it fourth) i'n contributing to development of ph-vironmental programs. County, state and federal officials reverse the order, with more respondents likely to list active groups than general public support. A number of respondents also recognize the role of the environ- mental situation itself as a factor contributing to the develop- ment of environmental management programs. Environmental deterioration is listed by 30% of the cities and 41% of the counties as an important contributor. Federal officials were most likely to mention, it (56%) making it their fifth most frequent response;.and 37% of state officials note it too. Larger cities are more likely to cite this factor than smaller cities; central cities are more likely than suburban or independent cities. But, there is little regional variation. ApparentlY permissive or enabling legislation is not considered a major factor in the development of environmental management programs. The existence of enabling legislation permitting governmental action is listed by only 28% of the cities and 46% of the counties; 47% of state and 44% of federal officials also cite it. Larger cities and counties, which may have more home- rule, are more likely than smaller local governments to cite it as a factor. The factor least likely to be mentioned by all groups of respondents is that of available expertise. Only 19% of the cities and 27% of the counties cite it as a factor. Federal officials are also unlikely to cite it (22%) , and state officials are least likely of all,0]%). Whether these data indicate a lack of available expertise in local government, or a belief that expertise is not' essential, to developing environmental management programs, is noit clear. There i's some evidence,for the lat,ter, since local. governments indicate a variety of expertise available Within their staffs, and from other sources. But a lack of expertise is seen as one of the "major obstacles to environmental management" (See the discussion of these data in a later part of this report). 68 In summary, local government officials see an important role for concerned local decision makers and for the stimulus provided by state and federal requirements in the development of environ- mental management programs at:the.local level. State and federal officia.1s share the view concerning state and federal requirements and also add state and federal financial inceniives.or ass-istance as a major factor, but do not consider the role of local officials as crucial. This di'sagreement@between local officials and state and federal officials is-one of the sharpe'st,and most@significant evidenced by this survey. 69 H Intergovernmental Relations Introduction Environmental quality is not the task of any single level of government. A successful program,requires the participation *of all three levels of government--local, state and federal.. Each level must be.concerned with the activities of the others; and e'ach-.must be aware of the per- ceptions, values, and,problems'of the-others. The survey -explored several of these areas". First, since the Environmental Protection Agency is the primary federal environmental contactithe study sought to learn the. frequency of- local government contact with, the, regional and central offices.of EPA. In addition this survey asks local govern- ment officials to -indicate their degree of satisfaction with these contacts.,.Second,,.since.the federal'irequirement for environmental,im-, pact statements,(EIS).is'@of direct.concern to both the @,federaland local governments,-a number of,questions were asked about the latter's experience with the.EIS proces.s.i Third, the role of federal and:state governments and theirAnteraction with local governments was addressed in a number of -direct questions (such as whether local governments were having difficulty-meeting federal standards) and indirect ones. (e.g., questions on-sources of expertise,.and,sourtes of stimuli and obstacles for envi ro nmental mana gement programs include thefederal gove;rnment as one'of the pos'sible,responses). Fourth, local governments were asked to indicate the problems they have encountered w ith federal and state governments concerning environmental management. This section of the report'will discuss these four aspects of intergovernmental relations. FREQUENCY AND EVALUATION OF CONTACTS WITH EPA Frequency Almost half of the cities (47%)'report frequent or very'frequent-contact with EPA, but communication between EPA and the cities is not constant for all classifications of cities. Larger cities are more likely to be in contact with.EPA and also to have more fr6q@uent contact than smaller cities'. OnIY-.7% of the cities'over 100,000 report no contact with EPA compared to 17% of.the smaller cities; and 27% of the larg@ Ir cities report very frequent contact compared.to 15% of the other cities. Suburban cities report the least contact, with 25% reporting no contact at all, and.only 10% responding their contact is very-frequent. The West also has 1ess contact than other regions, with the South indica- ting the most contact. Cities with a mayor-council form of government report more contact with EPA than council-manager cities (see Table 91). 70 Evaluation Only 9% of the cities complain about their contacts with either the central office or regional office of the Environmental Pro- tection Agency. Contact with the regional offices is slightly more satisfying than with the central office, according to local respondents; 56% of the cities'rate their contacts with the - regional office as satisfactory or very sati.sfactory, while 45%- of the cities ex press satisfaction with their central office contracts. The mean satisfaction rating for regional contact is 2.4 and for central office contact it is 2.6, with the possible range beIng 1.0 for very satisfactory and 5.0 for very unsatisfactory (see Tables 92 and 93). The largest cities (over 250,000) are most satisfie&with their contacts with both the regional- and central offices (mean scores of 2.0 and 2.3 respectively), while the smallest cities (under 50,000) are least satisfied-(means of,2.5 and 2.6 for their region- al and central office contacts, respectively). Other pockets, of relative dissatisfaction are Western cities (means of 2.5 and 2.7 for regional and central contacts) and suburban cities (2.5 and 2.7 for regional and central contacts). Apparently the degree of satisfaction-may be related to the, amount of contact. Smaller, Western, and suburban cities all report less contact with EPA offices. And, satisfaction appears to be un- related to difficulties complying with federal air and water standards. Those with the most4issatisfaction.are generally least likely to acknowledge such; difficulties (see Table 112). County data is not consistent with these findings. Although the smallest counties indicate the least satisfaction with their contacts, the group,of next smallest counties are the most satisfied. Western counties are the most satisfied in the nation, And metropolitan counties indicate higher levels of satisfaction than do!non-metropo'litan counties (see Tables 94 and 95). Of the nineteen states replying to our survey, only'one report of unsatisfactory interactIon with EPA is noted. Mean level@ of satisfaction with central EPA is 2.5,,w'ith regional EPA it Is 1.9. The regions used by our stud y do not conform to EPA's regional. offices and, therefore, an analysis of 'frequency and evaluation of contacts'with each regional office is not possible at this time. 71 FEDERAL EIS EXPERIENCE Approximately one-third of the cities (32%) indicate they have written a federal EIS as part of an application for federal funds (see. Table 96). About'one-fifth of the cities (22%).report they have reviewed such statements as.part of the process established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (see Table 97). These cities report writing an average of six statements and reviewing.an average of three statements. The number of statements reviewed appears to be very low considering that 2933 agency actions had been the subject 'of an EIS through May 1972, and that several cities might be eligible to review any single EIS. This may indicate some weakness in the A-95:review process machinery. Cities of more than 100,000 are more likely to write (66%) and review (45%) EISs than are smaller cities (29% and 20% for writing and reviewing respectively). The average number they write and review also is generally higher. Cities in the Northeast are least likely to have written an EIS, while the South is most likely. But, the review of ElSs is evenly distributed. Central cities are most likely to have written '(55%) and reviewed (35%) statements; and those who have done so average more statements than have suburban and independent cities. According to the 1972 Report of the President's Council on Environ- mental Quality (CEQ),almost half- .of all agency.actions resulting in an EIS have dealt wi'th roads. Flood control represented'14% and airports 8%.* Cities indicate that 38% of the statements they have written concern roads, 15% flood control, and 29% airports (see Table 98). Of the statements they have reviewed, 54% are for road projects, 34% flood control, and 23% airport (see Table 99). In other words, a disproportionately high number of statements have involved airports. The cities also report greater'involvement with urban renewal projects than is indicated in,the CEQ data. The cities report that outside consultants are frequently responsible for writing the cities' impact statements (41% of the cities indicated using them). The chief executive is listed as the author by approximately one-third of the cities (34%). There are no consistent size relationships, but Southern cities are most likely to use consultants (57%); city managers are more likely to be credited with writing them (37%) than are mayors (26%, see Table 100). *Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality, 1972, p. 249. 72 Regarding authorship of locally required EISs, only 14% of local chief executives were involved significantly as compared with 34% involvement in preparing EISs for the federal government. Conversely,. 54% of local departments were involved in local report preparation.as compared with 42% involved in the federal statement proces.s. Additionally, project developers play a large role in the local EIS process, while consultants are more likely to be used'in the federal process. County data generally agree with these findings. About one-third of the responding counties have written an average of-six EIS; and 37% have reviewed an average of seven EIS. Both figures are higher than for cit.ies (see Tables,101,and 102). Larger counties@are more likely than smaller counties to have written and reviewed an EIS. Metropolitan counties report greater involvement than other counties. The type of projects are similar, with the exception of fewer urban renewal projects (see Tables 1,03 and 104). Counties are more likely to use their . departments to prepare impact statements and are less likely to make it the responsibility of the chief executive (or chief administrative officer) or to 'use outside consultants (see.Table 105). When the cities who have parti,cipated in the federal EIS process by either writing or reviewing statements were asked to comment upon the effects of the EIS process, 30% indicate there has been no effect. Somewhat. fewer cities report project improvement as a result of the process-- 19% of those who have written statements and 28% of those who have reviewed them. Similar proportions report the process "provided" citizen,parti- cipation in the-decision making process--17% of 'the EIS-writing cities and 26% of the EIS-reviewing cities. However, a larger number list effects that may be considered critIcisms--45% of EIS-writing cities feel the process has "consumed extensive staff time" and 45% indicate project delays (the proportions for EIS-reviewing cities are similar--40% and, 0% respectively). A small proportion (5% of EIS-writing cities and 7% of.ElS.-reviewing cities) indicate projects have been "killed" as a result of the.EIS process (see Tables 106 and 107)-,. The states see a greater impact for the federal EIS process. Only 11% indicate the process has no effect. Almost three-fourths (72%) report project improvement, and two-thirds (67%) report citizen participation. But, complaints are also more frequent, with 78% noting extensive staff time and 83%.noting delay. Only 11% report a project has been killed as a.result of the EIS process. OTHER ASPECTS OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS It has already been noted that besides indicating concerned local officials, cities are most likely to point to state or federal requirements as a major factor contributing to the development of environmental management programs (68%). In addition 38% credit state or federal financial incentives as a major factor, and 28% note the importance of enabling legislation. 73 .The data for the counties indicate even higher proportions crediting state or federal requirements (77%) or financial incentive s (51%) as factors contributing to the developmen,t of programs. Counties also are more likely to mention enabling legislation as a stimulus (46%). In addition to this interrelationship of the three levels of govern- ment, approximately 15% of the cities report being the objects of suits regarding environmental matters in the last two years. Of these, one-third (34%) say the state government was the initiator of the suit. This represents 5% of all cities responding to our survey. The federal government is listed as the initiator of the suit by 7% of the cities (see Tables 108 and 109). The states in the North Central and Northeast are especially active, with over 40% of the cities in those regions whi-ch are sued naming the state government as the initiator. The counties responding to our survey were less likely to name the state as the initiator of suits even though the proportion being sued Is approximately the same. No county reports being the object of a federally-initiated suit (see Tables 110 and 111). Almost half of the responding cities (48%) indicate having some difficulty complying with state and/or federal standards for air or water quality. Water standards are causing the most problems for cities. Large cities generally are more likely to report difficulties, whether for water or air and whether the state or federal government is blamed. Central cities are also more likely than suburban (who are least likely)'and Independent cities to report di 'fficulties (see Table 112). In response to an open-ended question on the problems of municipal chief executives in dealing with environmental matters the cities most frequently mentioned complaints about having to meet standards--some- times changed while they are trying to comply with them--coupled with not receiving adequate financial assistance. Counties are even more likely to list difficulties meeting standards, suggesting county systems maybe even more inadequate (see Table 113). PROBLEMS OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS When the cities were given an opportunity to indicate the nature of the problems they have encountered in their relations with the state and federal governments concerning environmental matters, two- thirds (67%) of them listed some complaint. Counties are only slightly less likely to complain (59%). The proportion of cities and counties listing a problem declines as the size of th e governmental unit declines (e.g., 90% of the cities over 500,000 who respond to the questionnaire list at least one complaint, compared to 63% of the cities below 25,000). Whether this is due to differences in the quantity of intergovernmental relations, its quality, or the interest or sophistication of the respondents, is not clear. Western cities and counties are most likely to list a complaint (72% and 76%, respectively). Central cities are most likely and suburban citie's least likely to indicate a problem (metropolitan counties are more' likely than non-metropolitan); and local governments using a manager or administrator generally are more likely to answer this question than other governments. 74 The results that emerge from both city and county responses are similar in terms of complaints against both state and federal governments. The problem most frequently cited is inadequate funding. Of 06',@cities: ' responding to the questionnaire, 40% listed funding as aecomplaint against the state or federal government. It is as likely to be 1'eveled-against'the federal government (by 32% of the cities) as against state-governments Of those listinq any problem with the federal or state governments, the@' West and South are less likely to note funding than are cities in the Northeast-and North Central regions. Suburbs are least'likely to mention it. Central cities are most likely to list i-t as a complaint against state governments, but independent ci'ties are most likely-to list it as a complaint against the federal government (see Tables 114 and 115). The second most frequently cited problem is uncertainty and delay in program administration. This may be a function of the fact that concern with the environment and the development of programs and organizations to administer them are recent phenomena. It is likely that the un- certainty will decline as knowledge about the problems and their potential solutions are increased, and as a clearer statement of goals and priorities are developed by the polity. But in the meantime, 35% of all cities list it as a problem, wi-th 27% of the citUes naming the federal government, while almost the same amount (25%-) list the state government (see Table 116 for a sUmmary*).'.Western cities are most likely to name the states as committing this problem, but Southern cities are most likely to blame the federal government. The third problem, conflicting or unreal standards is indicated by 12% of the cities.. States are slightly more Likely to,b 'e blamed (23%) than the federal government (20%). This problem, like the previou .s one reflecting uncertainty in program administration, may,also clear up with time. Nevertheless, a lack of consensus on goal.s could continue to contribute to this complaint being made in the future. No clear patterns emerge. For instance, suburban cities are least likely to register this complaint against the federal government, but most Ukely to note it for state governments. This may reflect the fact that suburban cities are less likely than other cities to have contact with federal agencies. Inadequate communication is noted as a problem by 27% of the cities,@ with.20%.blaming the federal government and 21% citing the state governments. Cities in the Northeast are least*likely to cite this problem. Smaller cities are more likely to cite it as a problem with. state government than do larger. cities. Twen,ty-seven percent of the cities complained that local government participation in policy-making is inadequate. This is more likelyto be attributed to local-state relations (23%@ than to local-federal relations (18%). Whether cities participate more in federal 'than in state policy-making, or whether fewer expect to participate in either, is not clear. Southern cities are more likely than others to list this 75 complaint--either against the federal government or against state governments. Non-metropolitan cities are less likely to make this complaint. Council-manager cities are more likely than mayor-council cities to blame state governments. But there is no difference in the propor,tions attributing the problem to the federal government. Another point of view of local participation in state policy-making comes from the states' responses to our questionnaire concerning local participation in the drafting of state pollution plans (air, water, solid waste), They indicate that local participation in the form of serving on planning committees, or actually drafting segments of plans occurred more often (7 states) than lesser forms of participation such as merely reviewing plans or testifying at public hearings (6 states) or to have had no involvement at all (4 states). Data are incomplete for the other five states responding to our survey. One-fifth (21%) complain about inadequate technical assistance. Again, there is a tendency to see this as a greater problem for local- state relations (18%) than local-federal relations (14%). And here too, differences in expectations may be important. State officials are.considered a more important source of expertise than federal officials --in fact, more than twice as many cities say that state officials have been a source of expertise in the previous two years than federal officials have been. Northeastern cities and central cities are slightly more likely than other kinds of cities to register this complaint against the state or federal government. Overlapping programs is also seen by approximately one fifth of the cities as an intergovernmental problem (15% citing the federal govern- ment and 14% of the states). Unreasonable enforcement measures is the least mentioned (17%) of the eight problems to be noted by the cities. More cities are likely to blame the state (14%) than the federal government M), reflecting the division of responsibilities between the federal government as the standard setter and state governments as having the primary responsibility for enforcing the standards. The West is least likely to raise enforce- ment.as a problem. Data for the counties indicate approximately the same pattern, with some,: minor differences. There is a slight tendency for'fewer counties to register a complaint (see Tables 117 and 118). At the state level financing is listed as the major problem in their relations with the federal government--]I of 19 states responding note either general complaints or specific references to the problem of the Presidential impoundment of funds. Nine of the states are also critical of federal decision making, commenting on delays, changes, lack of decisions, or interagency conflicts. Four states complained about the nature of federal requirements (e.g., too little time to respond, or too detailed or excessive requirements). 76 Intergovernmental rela 'tions are affected not only by the local governments' perceptions of.the other levels, but also by how the states and federal governments perceive local governments. The problem most frequently cited by the federal respondents concerning their,relations with local government is a hesitancy on the part of local governments to make the necessary hard decisions. They perceive a tendency for local governments to look to other levels of government to [email protected]@ decisions for them. Some federa.] respondents attribute this hesitancy to an inordinate amount of influence that developers and other special interests have over local governments. Several also refer to*a lack-of expertise available to local governments. Also cited is the fragmentation,,of.responsibi@lity at the local governmental level". Finances.are ment4oned by other respondents-one citing the local governments' lack of financial resources, while two others perceive the local governmentsas unwilling to fund programs. the problem most'freqUentty reported by states regarding encounters with local gove-r@nments,,,concerning.environmentaI management,deals with finances--the inability or the reluctance of local governments to finance needed.p. rograms'. Several states also cite juri.'sdictional disputes or fragmentation of responsibility between local.governments, in conjunction with charges of provincialism or hesitancy to partici- pate in regional arrangements. As in the development of any new intergovernmental program, there will undoubtedly be problems defining the roles and responsibilities between levels. When asked to ind.icate.problems encountered with state and federal governments, most local governments did spell out some problems. The federal government is as likely to be the object of local complaints as the state government. The most frequently cited problem is Inadequate financing. On the. other hand, state and federal respondents are critical of'local government hesitancy to act. 77 1. Problems in Environmental Management Introduction An understanding of the problems facing local governments in managing the environment is the focus of this section. Two questions in the survey comprise the basic sources of information. The first is a closed-ended question: "What are the major obstacles to environ- mental management in municipality?" The other is an open-ended question: "What are the most critical problems facing you as chief executive in dealing with environmental matters?" The latter question gives the respondent an opportunity to either reinforce some of his previous responses such as complaints about his relations with the state and federal governments; to reinforce some of his evaluations of the seriousness of various pollution problems, such as citing solid waste as one of the "critical problems...in dealing with environ- mental matters; "or, to indicate some aspects of environmental management not directly examined in the questionnaire such as problems of balancing the demands of "special interests" against the commonly invoked perceptions of "public interest." OBSTACLES TO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT A summary of the responses of the city and county officials to the question "What are the major obstacles to environmental management in your municipality?" are included in Tables 119 and 120. Clearly, inadequate finances is perceived as the most important obstacle. Almonst three-fourths of the cities responding to this question cite inadequate finances as an obstacle. In every category of cities, this is the factor cited most frequently. Countie are almost as concerned about money--more tan two-thirds of the counties cite it as an obstacle. The larger counties, however, cite fragmentation of responsiblity between levels of government more frequently, as do counties in the Northeast, and those with an administratrtor. State respondents also recognize the seriousness of scarce financial resources--95% of the states cite this factor as an obstacle. While 69% of the federal respondents perceive inadequate finances as a serious problem, more of them (75%) cite fragmentation as a problem. Besides financial problems, there is high agreement among respondents that the fragmentation of responsiblility between levels of government is a serious obstacle to enviornmental management. Almost half of the cities (49%) cite it, as do 64% of the counties, 53% of the states, and 75% of the federal respondents. Although there is much agreement that the delineation of responsibility between the various levels of govern- ment for environmental management is not clear, it is unlikely that there would be consensus on how to resolve this problem. Evidence for 78 this latter statement may be seen in the responses to a question directed to the state and federal officials asking them which unit of government (from local through regional to state) "should provide" a series of environmental management "services," e.g., air pollution abatement, solid waste disposal. A large majority of the states (67% to 88%) feel they should provide, or at least share in the provision of, services concerning air, noise, and water pollution abatement. For the other services (e.g., refuse collection, sewage, water supply and distribution) a majority of the stats indicate cities should be the provider, except for solid waste disposal in which counties are cited slightly more frequently than cities. Federal respondents, on the other hand, prefer an "area-wide or multi-jurisdictional unit," and given the states a predominant edge only regarding sewer lines, and the cities only on noise pollution abatement and refuse collection. The third major obstacle cited by cities is a lack of expertise. Thiry-eight percent(38%) of the cite this factor. Counties are somewhat less concerned, only 26% cite it, thereby placing it in fourth position (after "insufficient enabling legislation"). The state respondents also place it as the third most frequently cited with 42%. The federal respondents place it fourth, although 56% cited it as an obstacle for local governments. For the counties, the smaller ones are more likely to consider it a problem than the larger ones. There is no relationship between size and citing this factor for the cities. Other indications that lack of expertise is a problem for local governments can be seen in the data on factors contributing to the development of enviromental management programs. As mentioned earlier, the data indicate available expertise is the factor least likely to be mentioned (19% of the cities and 27% of the counties cite it.) In addition, the local governments indicate elsewhere in the survey that they need additonal training even though they have a variety of expertise available within their staffs. Only 13% of the cities and 21% of the counties do not indicate a need for some type of environmental training (see Tables 121 and 122). The greatest need for training comes in the broader areas of "general environmet" (69% of the cities and 70% of the counties indicate a need for additional training in that area), environmetal standards and enforcemnet (71& and 60%), and environmental impact statements (56% and 55%). Less need is expressed for more applied and technical areas of water(17% of the cities but 35% of the counties), liquid waste (22% and 32), and solid waste (28% and 46%). This reflects the areas of expertise listed as available within their staff. For example, using city data only, 76% claim available expertise for water quality, 86% for sewage, and 79% for solid waste in contrast to only 11% for envronmental sciences, and 26% for enviornmental management. Other applied areas do show gaps, however, with only 16% of the cities indicating available internal 79 expertise on air quality and 21% on noise. Land use expertise,, however, is indicated as readily available, with 84% of the cities cla.iming such expertise. Larger cities and central cities generally have- more expertise represented on their staffs (see Table 123). It is interesting to note that large and central cities generally are not less likely to indicate a need for training in a particufar*ai@ea, despite their higher availability._ @see Table 114 for.comparable county data). The cities report a wide range of sources to supplement their own expertise. The source most frequgntly,cited is state officials (68%). Consulting firms are the second-most frequently 'Cited source (6ofl. Other governmental sources include federal official 's (32%), COG or other regional staff (29%), afid.other local government's '(20%)'. Environ- mental'grouos (26%) and universities (18%) are add.i't'io''nal.sources.. The, wide range of sources indicates that the limitations of inadequate staff expertise can be overcome, and the nature of most of the sources indicates at little financial burden (see Table 125', which also indicates that the central-cities and the large cities are more likely 'to*be turn- ing to federal officials than the other cities do).'Subuirba6 cities are least likely of the cities to turn to the federal-leve. I and are most likely to turn to 'other local sources such as other cities and COGs. Counties also indicate 'Substantial use of state and federal officials and outside consulting firms (see Table 126). Inadequate methods to measure problems and an absence of necessar Iy technology are cited as obstacles to environmental management by 36% and 28% of the cities, respectively'. For the count .let the proportions, are 25% and 22% respectively, and for the state respondents it is 37% and 21% respectively. Federal officials are relatively more concerned about inadequate measures of the problem, as 61% indicate, making it their third priority. Thirty-three percent (M) list inadequate, technology as a major obstacle; A lack of public support is indicated as an obstacle by approximately one-fifth of the local governments (21% of the cities and 19% of the counties). The proportion of countie's listing it.is the lowesi.for any of the eight obstacles included Jh:the question. Almost one-third (32%) of the state officials cite it, at do.39%.of gthe federairres- pondents. Insufficient enabling legislation is, mentioned .by 19% of the cities as a majorobstacle. Twice as many counties (38%) list it, reflecting their lack of authority. for counties,'It is the.tht.rd most frequently cited obstacle. State*and'federal"r 'espondehts place it near the end of their list with 21% of the states and 36% of the federal agencies noting it. 80 Fragmentation of responsibility within city or county government is cited by 44% of the federal respondents (their fifth most frequently cited obstacle). The others are far less likely to see it as an obstacle--22% of the counties cite it, but only 11% of the cities and states see,it as an obstacle. For the cities and states it is the least frequently cited factor. In summary, indadequate finances and problems of fragmentation of responsibility between the levels of government are the two most frequently cited obstacles by city, county, state, and federal respondents alike. CRITICAL PROBLEMS IN DEALING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS When asked to discuss the problems facing local government chief executives in environmental management, local officials substantiated much of the data from earlier closed-ended questions. The single problem cited more than any other,by the respondents from each of the three levels of govern- ments deals with inadequate funds and financial resources. The local govern- ments often link the problem to the other levels of government, sometimes referring to federal impounding of funds or complaining about meeting federal and state standards without adequate financial assistance from them. Occasionally, they note their inadequate tax base, and several local respondents admit a reluctance of their own city councils and citizens to appropriate the money. Besides citing various pollution problems (such as water quality or solid waste) local executives' complaints involving federal and state governments are the second most frequently cited category of problems. Local governments are especially bitter about changing and/or "un- realistic" standards and guidlines. These complaints reflect the data cited earlier in Table 116 which indicates inadequate finances, admin- istrative uncertainty or delay, and conflicting or unrealistic standards as the three most frequently reported problems cities have encountered in their relations with the state and federal governments. And as in the earlier data based on closed-ended questions, state governments are as likely to be pointed out as is the federal government. Another common problem frquently noted by the local governments (and occasionally by the federal respondents but not by state officials) is the need for increased staff expertise. Sometimes the problem is simply cited as a need for expertise or knowledge, and sometimes the problem is stated in terms of a need for additional staff. This complaint is frequently tied to financial need by the local governments. The need for public support is another frequent theme. Comments about apathy and public misunderstanding are voiced by respondents from all three levels,of government. 81 A number of respondents at all levels of government relate problems facing the local chief executive in dealing with environmental matters to the other issues he must face. The scarcity of resources necessitates the development of priorities between the environment and other policy issues, and between the different environmental issues. Several local governments refer to a conflict between economic develop- ment or growth and environmental quality, or to other issue conflicts such as housing versus open-space. Several local governments mention the need for cost-benefit analyses or other determinations of "whether or not environmental concern is worth the social consequences that will follow it" (to use the Words of one respondent). Sometimes the local governmental respondent complains about a lack of goals, either in general terms or specifically related to the environment. Competition and conflict concerning community goals and priorities also leads to comments about the conflict between their spokesmen. A number of cities comment on the conflict between developers and environ- mentalists. The number of local government respondents who single out developers and "special interests" for criticism are about equal to the number who single out environmentalists as the object of their criticism. The problem of fragmentation between levels of government is another problem that is broader than just environmental matters, but is cited by a number of respondents at all levels. Sometimes the comment refers to problems between the local, state and federal governments, but usually it refers to jurisdictional conflict between units of local government. Several cities and counties cite the fact that environ- mental problems that concern them are out of their jurisdiction-- usually they mean another city in the area. Occasionally though, their adverse comments refer to regional authorities. Other complaints about a lack of authority for local governments (a relatively common comment by federal respondents) often refer tothe need for additional enabling legislation. The specific environmental problems most frequently cited by the local governments are in the areas of water quality (especially the problem of sewage treatment) and solid waste disposal. General land use problems are also noted relatively frequently.. Although there is a wide range of other problems facing the local chief executive as listed by them as well as by respondents at the state and federal levels, the ones discussed above are the most frequent. SUMMARY Money to develop programs and hire the experts necessary to administer them, and the fragmentation of responsibility between various local governments and between local, state, and federal governments which complicates and exacerbates intergovernmental relations, are problems in environmental management` which clearly emerge from the analyses of the data from open-ended and closed-ended questions answered by local, state, and federal officials. 82 1140 Connecticut APPENDIX I Avenue Northwest Washington DC 20036 Municipal Urban Year Data International CRY, - Management Book Service Association Environmental Management Instructions: In the following ques- viflage; and the term "chief executive" and Local Government tions. the term "municipality" refers is used to mean executives, managers, Questionnaire 1973 to your organization whether county, 'chief administrative officers, mayors, city, borough, town, township, or chairmen, or first selectmen. 1. Defu-dtion 1. Based on your own feelings, rank the following local issues according to their importance in your community. (Rank the items from I - 8; 1 = most important, 2 next most important, etc. Do not use any number more than once.) 7- - a. Crime I I - - e. Taxes 8-- b. Education 12-_ f. Transportation 9- c. Environment 13-_g. Welfare 10- d. Housing and urban blight 14--h. Other (specify) 2. Various officials have differing definitions of the term "environment." Which of the following groups of items most closely agrees with your own definition of "environment." (Check one) Is- 1. Air, noiRe, sewerage, solid waste, toxic substances. water 2i. AU.in response "I" plus energy. historical preservation, land use and open space, radiation, population, and wUdlife preservation -3. All in responses "I " and "'." plus aesthetics, health, housing, mass transportation, recreation, streets and highways -4. All in responses "I", "T' and "Y plus economic development, education, employment, public safety, and welfare 3. Rate the severity of the following problems in your municipality. (Circle one response for each item.) No problem (1) (2) (3) (4)- (5) Severe problem 16- a. Aesthetics 1 2 3 4 .5 f. Radiation 1 2 3 4 5 21 17- b. Air 1 2 3 4 5 g. Solid waste 1 2 3 4 5 22 I& c. Growth 1 2 3 4 5 h. Wastewater 1 2 3 4 5 23 19- d. Land use 1 2 3 4 5 i. Water supply 1 2 3 4 5 24 20- e. Noise 1 2 3 4 5 j. Other - 1 2 3 4 5 25 83 NOTE: In the following questions, the term "environment" refers to the categories listed in Question 3. U. Organization and Policy UNDER 4. Has your municipality adopted a statement of general CONSID- environmental goals or policy? ......................... YES NO ERATION 26 If "YES," in what year was it adopted? .................. I.................. 19 27-28 S. Does your municipality have a staff committee which meets regularly specifically to consider environmental matters? .................... I........... YES ( ) NO ( 29 6. Does your municipality have an environmental depar tment or agency? .............. YES ( ) NO ( 30 If "YES," A. Is it separate or a part of another department or agency? 31- 1. Separate 2. A part of an agency (Please specify) B. In what year was it established? ................ .................... 19 32-33 C. Number of full-time professional and/or technical staff ..................... 34-36 D. What are the department's primary functions? (Check all those applicable.) 37-- a. Research 41- - e. Environmental impact.assessment 38- b. Planning 42-_ Program development 39- C. Inspection and monitoring 43- g. Advisory functions 40- d. Enforcement, "-h. Interdepartmental coordination 4S. iI. Other (specify) 7. Has your municipality expanded the responsibility of previous existing citizen boards or commissions to include environmental'problems and issues? ............... YES NO 46 If "YES," which boards and commissions? (Check all applicable.) 47- so- a. Park and recreation d. Community development 48- b. Planning e. Other (specify) 49- c. Historic preservation 8. Has your municipality created a citizen environmental board or commission which deals with environmental issues? ......................... YES NO 52 If "YES," A. In what year was it created? ......................................... 19 53-54 B. How many members d oes it have? . . . . . I... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SS-57 84 8. C. What are its primary functions? (Check all those applicable.) 58- a. Investigate environmental problems 61--d. Advise the municipality's governing body sq- b. Organize community programs 62--e. Enforce environmental quality standards 60-- @c.: Educate the public 63-@ f, Other (specify) D. Is this a specialized citizen environmental board or commission which deals with a specific environmental problem (e.g., Air Quality Board)? .................... YES NO 64 If "YES," what topics does it consider? (Check all those applicable.) 65- _a. Air 67-- b ' Solid waste 66- b. Water 68-- C. Other (specify) 9. Has an official in your municipality been designated as having primary responsibility for environmental matters? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .YES NO 69 If "YES," A. Who is that official? (Check one) 70- - 1. The chief executive -2. A staff member in the chief executive's office (Specify position: 3. Head of environmental department of agency -4. Head of another department (Specify department: - 5. Other (specify) B. What are his primary environmental functions? (Check all those applicable.) 71.- a. Provide advice on environmental, policy 72- - b. Develop environmental programs 73- C. Supervise environmental activities 74- d. Carry out operational responsibilities for environmental programs 75- e. Other (specify) HI. Programs and Activities 10. In which of the following areas do you feel your municipality's staff has competence? (Check all those applicable.) 7. a.. Environmental management 12- - f. Sewerage .a. b. Environmental sciences 13-_g. Solid waste 9- c. Air quality 14- _ h. Water quality to. d. Land use is--i. Other(specify) e. Noise 11. What type of environmant-related training is n eeded for the management staff of your municipality? (Check all those applicable.) 16- a. General environment 20-. e. Solid waste 17- b. Environment standards and enforcement 21-- f. Water is- c. Environmental impact statements 22- - g. Other (specify) ig- d. Liquid waste 23- h-. None 12. Who has provided environmental expertise to your municipality in the past two years outside your own municipality's staff? (Check, all those applicable.) 24- a. Other local governments 2 8- - e. Consulting firm 25- b. COG or other regional staff 29---_-;_ f. University staff 26- c, State officials 30-_g, Environmental groups 27. d. Federal officials 31--h, Other (specify) 85 13. What are the most important or innovative actions or programs your municipality has undertaken in the last two years to improve or safeguard the environment? 14. Has your municipality adopted a formal requirement for environmental impact statements? (Check one only) 32- 1. on public and private projects?. 2. on public projects only? 3. on private projects only? 4. none A.If "PUBLIC," which projects are assessed? 33- a. All public projects 34- b. Public projects over a mininium cost (Specify cost: 35- c. Other (specify) B. If "PRIVATE," which projects are assessed? (Check all those applicable.) 36- a . All private projects 37- b. Private projects over a minimum cost (Specify cost: 38- c. Private projects over a minimum number of units (Specify number: 39- d. Other (specify) C. If "PUBLIC" and/or PRIVATE," who writes the statements? (Check all those applicable.) 40- 43- a. Chief executive's office d. Outside consultant to municipality 41- 44- b. Environmental department e. Private developer 42- 45- c. Other department(s) f. Other (specify) D. If "PUBLIC" and/or "PRIVATE," who reviews the statements? (Check those applicable.) 46- 49- a. Citizens or citizen groups d. Administrative staff 47- 50- b. Municipality's legislative body e. Other (specify) 48- c. Chief executive UNDER 15. Does your master plan include a conservation CONSID- (environmental) section? ............................. YES ( ) No ( ) ERATION ( ) 51 16. Which of the following land use controls have been enacted by your municipality? (Check all those applicable.) 52- 58- a. Architectural appearance g. Required installation of public facilities (e.g.,sewers) by developers 53- b. Flood plain zoning 59- h. Required dedication of land for public purposes (e.g., schools, parks) by developers 54- c. Growth limitations 60- i. Zoning for protection of natural resources or ecological systems 55- d. Historical preservation 61- j. Other (specify) 56- e. Marshland controls 57- f. Open space zoning 86 17. Which of the following controls have been enacted by your municipality? (Check all those applicable.) . I :. . I . : .. 11 1 - .. . @ . .1. - . I . @ I @ T. 62- 67- a. Abandoned vehicle ordinance f. Noise ordinancel 63- 68- b. Tree preservation ordinance g. Restrictions on nonreturnable bottles 64- c. Erosion control ordinance 69- h.. Sanitation (refuse) ordinance 65- d. Grading (excavation) ordinance 70- -1. Sign ordinance 66- 71- e. Housing code J .Other (specify) 18. In which of the fo,ilowing areas has_ your municipality officially adopted, monitored, or enforced environmental quality star dards? Regularty Standards monitored/ Name of Number of adopted measured enforcing enforcement Environmental area (Check) (Check) department staff a. Air .................... 7) 8) 9) b. Noise ................... (13) (14) (15) (16-18) c. Sewerage ................ (19) (20) (21) (22-24) d. Water ................... (25) (26) (27) ---T2 -8-30) 19. 'Has your municipality sponsored, either by itself or jointly UNDER with other governmental bodies, conferences for enforcing CONSID- environmental standards? .............................. YES NO ERATION )31 If "YES," please specify. 20.. Does your municipality have tax incentives or.subsidies to UNDER stimulate business and industry to develop programs for CONSID- improving environmental quality? ........................ YES NO ERATION )32 If "YES," please specify. 21, Does your municipality have a penalty (fine or tax) structure UNDER in which business and industry pay for discharging pollutants CONSID- directly into the environment? , ....... YES NO ERATION )33 If "YES," please specify. 22. Has your municipality imposed a moratorium. based on environmental considerations in the last two years9 ... ...... ............ ...... YES NO )34 If "YES," A. What was,delayed? (Check all those. applicable.) 35- 37- a. Issuance of building permits c. Water or sewer connections 36- . ; - I . . 38-. b. Requests for rezoning d. Other (specify) B. Why was the moratorium imposed? C. How many months was the moratorium in effect? (If still in effect, how long has it been in effect?) ..................................... months (39-40) 87 23. Has your municipality initiated any major legal suit(s) regarding environmental matters in the last two years? ......................................... YES NO 41 If "YES," what was the subject of the suit(s)? 24. Has your municipality been the obfect of any environmental suit(s) in the last two years? .............................................. YES NO 42 If "YES," A. Who brought the suit(s)? (Check all those applicable.) 43- a. Environmental group d. Federal government 44- 47- 45- b. Private business e. Other (specify) c. State governments B. What was the subject of the suit(s)? 25. What are the major factors contributing to your municipality developing environmental management programs? (Check all those applicable.) 48- a. Environmental deterioration 53-_ f. Public support 49.- b. Concerned municipal officials 54-_ g. Active environmental or civic groups so- 55- 51- c. Enabling legislation 56- h. State or federal.requirements 52- d. Available expertise - i. Other (specify) e. State or federal financial incentives or assistance 26. What are the major obstacles to environmental management in your municipality? (Check all those applicable.) 57- a. Insufficient enabling legislation 62- f. Fragmentation of responsibility 58- 59- b. Lack of public support 63- between levels of government c .Inadequate methods to measure g. Fragmentation of responsibility 60- problems 64- within -municipality 61- d. Lack of expertise 65-- h. Absence of necessary technology e. Inadequate finances i .Other (specify) IV. Intergovernmental Programs and Activities 27. Indicate the frequency of contact your municipality has (had) with federal agencies regarding environmental problems. (Circle one for each item.) Very Very frequent Frequent Infrequent infrequent None a. Corps of Engineers ................... 1 2 3 4 5 66 b. Department of Housing and Urban Development ................... 1 2 3 4 5 67 c. Department of Interior ............ 2 3 4 5 68 d. Department of Transportation ..... 1 2 3 4 5 69 e. Environmental Protection Agency ......... 1 2 4 5 70 f. Other (specify) 1 2 3 4 5 71 88 28. How would you evaluate your municipality's contact with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's central and regional offices? (Circle one for each item.) Very Very satis- Satis- Unsatis- unsatis- No factory factory Neutral factory factory contact a. Central office . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 72 b. Regional office . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 73 29. Has your municipality participated in the writing of federal environmental impact statements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES NO 74 if "YES," A. How many statements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -75-77 B. What types of projects did,the,stateme.nts concern? (Check all those applicable.), 7- to- a. Airport d. Roads 8- -b. Electric power e. Urban renewal c. Flood control 12- f. Other (specify) C. Who writes the statements? (Check all those applicable.) 13- a. Chief executive's office 16-_ d. Outside consultant 14- - b E nvironmental department 17- e. Another governmental agency 15- 18- -c. Other department(s) f. Other (specify) 30. Has your municipality participated in reviewing federal environmental impact statements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES NO ig if.. YES,- A. How many statements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-22 B. What types of projects did the statements concern? (Check all those applicable.) 23- a. Airport 26- d. Roads 24- b. Ele Icthc power 27- e. Urban renewal 25- c. Flood contr .ol 28- f. Other (specify) 31. What major effects, if any, has the federal environmental impact procedure caused in your municipality? (Check all those applicable.) 29- a. Resulted in project. imp rovements 32- - --- d. Delayed project(s) 30- b. Provided citizen participation 3 3-_ e. "Filled" project(s) 31- 34- c: Consumed extensive staff time f. No effect 32. With which, of the following state and/or federal standards is your municipality having difficulty complying? (Check all those applicable.) 35- 38- - a. State air quality d. Federal water quality 36- b. Federal air quality 39- e. None 37- -c. State water quality 89 33. Has your municipality participated in enforcement conferences during the last two years sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? ............. YES NO 40 If "YES," please specify. 34. Which of the following problems have you encountered in your relations with stdie And federal governments con- cerning environmental management? (C heck those applicable'for both federal and state levels.) State Federal State Federal (1) (2) (1) (2) 41- 45- 42-- a. Overlapping programs 46--. e. Inadequate communication b. Conflicting or unreal- f. Inadequate technical assistance 47- 43- istic standards g. Uncertainty and delay of c. Unreasonable enforce- 48- . program adriftinistration 44- . ment measures . 49- h. Inadequa .te funding d.. Inadequate local p@irtici- i. Other (specif0.1 pation in policy making 35. If you have implemented the following environmental strategies, how effective have they been mi promoting and securing environmental quality? If you have not used the following environmental strategies, in your opinion, how effective do you think they would be? (Circle appropriate@ response.) Very Very, Don't effective. Effective -Neutral Ineffective ineffective know a. Environmental agency ....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 so b. Citizen advisory board ....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 c. Environmental impact statements ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 52 d. Land use controls ............ 1 2 4 5 6 s3 e. Environmental quality standards ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 S4 f. Enforcement conferences ..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 @55 g. Tax incentives ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 56 h. Penalty charges ........... 1 2 3' 4 5 6 57 i. Moratoriums ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ss j. Law suits ............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 s9 k. Intergovernmental and regional arrangements ...... 1 @2 @3 4 5 6 60 36. What are the most critical problems facing you as chief executive in dealing with environmental matters? Please attach copies of any environmental reports or oj dinances where approphate to the items discussed above. Thank you for your assistance! Name Title go APPENDIX 2 1ABLE" 1. CITY RESPONSE RATE 'OF C I T HS RE-.SPUNU LNG CLASSIFICATION SUkVE YEL) TGTAL9 ALL CITIES -RQPVLATION GROUP -Ottji-5 0 0 9 0 0 0 26 t 38o 30 '@16 60 @100tQQQ-250 000 :S8 :.61 621, 5020co-lootooo 255 142 56 ---4@5-aoc- 50,0oo 520 28"2* J4@ 109000- 259000 1353 6C2 44 tCoo_ J0'OGQ 0 . C. I @o C- 5tQ0O:, 0 c- a 'UNCER 2t5OO C 0 GF-CGRAPHIC REGIUN NCAT@EAST @705' .2,52 :56@ NC.RTH CENTkAL 669 321 49 @suufl- 540 274 51 W EST L- 36,8 262 71- MEfxo/c FY TYPE CEN) bAL 349 I-S5 56 SUBUH&N 1255 5S2 47 .INLEOENDENT 678 328 48, m, GOVL-RNMENT MAYCIF-COUNCIL 92,5 27S 30 CCUINCIL-MANAGER 11G6 76S 70 COAMISSIGN 122 @34 28 TOWN....MEET ING 86 25. 29 .K@P. TOWN MEETINC 44 8 18 TABLE 2. COUNTY RESPONSE RATE CGUNTIES NO. OF CQUNJI ES -RESPONDING- CLASSIFICATION SURVEYED h 2 :ICIAL, @LL COUNTIES 639 "All .2 8 --POPULATION GROUP 58 25- 43 70 27 39 L__Z@_GOOQ-5009000 000 185 51 31 5-()jgg-Q- tQ 0 a 0 0 326 6E- 21 50,000 0 c 0 ko@oou_ 25.00'0 0 0 0 51pooo- 109000 0 c 0 0 5*000 c 0 0 C, 0 UNDLH 21L500 @GEQPRAPHIC REGION NORTHEAST 127 4C 31 NORTH CLINTAAL 183 4s 21 S LIU T ti 237 55@ 2.3 WL@T sz 33 3b A-E-TRC- STATUS- METkC 383 Its 31 E I R 0 256 '5 9_4@@ .FCR,'4 CF GOVERNMENT WITHOUT ADMAURATOR 14.9 56 33 WITH ADMINISTRATOR 5 1 6S 46- UNKNCWN 3 1,; 52 16 TABLE 3. CITY DEFINITIONOF "ENVIRONMENT" No. OF DEE INEO DEFINED D-EFIFLED DEtINEQ NCRE MOST mo-sl LLS-S REPOOING NARRQhLV AARR0wLY 6AQA@QLY BROACLY (A) NO, A- 0 1 A _k(., :t A NQ-A---A; A TOTALY ALL CITIES 1100 188 17 281 2.6- -Z5@8U -3 - -73 3 -j- POPULATION GROUP -Q-VtR 50,000 10 2 20 2 20 5 50 1 10 u Ir Q.qo:15-0 02- 00-0 18 4 22 2 Il 7 39 28- Q 07!@5 au" 0 60 5 a .11 '18 '17 28 27 45 .142 19 13 38 27 43 30 42 30 25tkQ0- 509000 260 46 16 74 26 63 23 97 35 -112 19 154 26 123 21 @201 34 -X.Q. 09 -5 t-Q-0 Q 590 .0 0 'o -Zv.AQG- 5 000 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 UNA-kR 2P500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SEQ-QRA-Pb.lC REGIOR 22 23 58 23 NO RIH-EA-5-T 54 79 32 hCKTH CENTRAL 321 .68 21 74 23 20 114 36@ 270 55 zc 70 26 58 21 87 32 w Ul 260 IL 4 58 22 77 @30 114 44 RETH/CITY TYPE CENTRAL 194 28 14 43 22 57 29 66 34 -S C FR "RA N 582 :1 (,0 17 149 26 138 24 195 34 .INDEPENDENT 324 60 19 89 27 19 112 35; F..(.R P C F G.OV.ERNMENT MAYCP--;COUNCIL f4 23 64 23 48 17 100 36 - Q-- U- N C -I-L -- -MA- -NA-G, E R 758 IC6 14 201 27 193 25 256 34 34 9 26 6 18 8 24 11 32 YGwN 4E,ETfNG 25 7 28 8 32 5 20 5 20 REP. TOwN MEETING_-T- 2 29 4 57 TABLE 4. COUNTY DEFINITION OF "ENVIRONMENT" No. or- DEEINED OFFINED nEFINED n r. F-IAEJQ-- P -0 S -T- REP ING N A R K0 NARRO @LY 0 8 CAA 0 JL Y-E 18 -Q A L -1-'t I A 12 .(A) h A I COUNTIES 174 32 18 1 2'4 35 -2 Q 66 -48 RC-.P-U-LA-UQN--G.R(3UP 2 8 @7 :2 8 8 32 6 32 -GY-EB---5 0 0 0 0 0 25 Ol 0 0 0 27 7 26 5 1@ 6 22 9 -33 L100*000-2 as 00 56 7 13 11 20 15 '24 23 41- 5-0 2. -0-0 0 - 10 0 1.1-0-0 0 66 16 24 .18 27 6 9 2 k--:-3 9 2 I.QkQ- .0 c .0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @O 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -UNGER. 2*50,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GB- Aftl-C-11MON 40 6 15 12 30 1.2 -AO KI. I�-CtM KA L 46 @14 30 6 13 10 22 16 35- 55 a is 15 27 3 5 29 51 .:___WES T 33 4 .12 8 24 10 30 11-1-3- .MfJRO STATUS -mkTpo 118 19 16 27 23 3 25 42 36 NCN METRO 56 13 23 14 25 5 9 24 43 ECR M C F -G-QY-E NMENT --WITHIJUT ADMrNISTRATOR 55 -15' -27- 17' 31@ 4 7 19 35 WITH ADMINI.STRATOR 6'9 11 16 15 22 20 29 23 33 U.NKNCWN 50 6 12 9 18 11 22 24 48 .,TABLE 5 CITY RATED SEVERITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS. L 5 S V K L P R L@2 L EM A E 5 T h I I G S A 1.-@ SULI-U@WSIE W,5'1'.AATt@@ m4fLK SPLY WE IGHTED WEI-GHTED-WEIGHTED-- WE1GHTED______WFI.GHTED_ WEIGHTED- --WE-IGHTED---WEI-GHTED- L__WE_LGHT.ED AVERAGE NC. ,,,I Nk;. iv_ . 11@. . !J. f! NG. :4 L ;'C'. A L .6N N, M L - -I':- 2.67 T OT A L t@ ALL! CITIL@ iij 73 .1 C ec -3 .2 iu9@3@' 3. 3 ib@@6 2 .4 10 7 1 I.;k I 3@2 0 6 C Popu L 4 T I C N' CRUUP 4.6 10 2. d'- 10 3.3 1,' 3. 3 lu 2.6' 10 1.4 3.1 1@; 3.2 1C 2.5 1 2.78' 1 3 --!--2. Id 2.,d Id Is 2oa 1b @.9 .@16 2 .2 18 1 .-J 1 17 4 . U -2 61 2.9 61 2.6-- 61,. -:,.3 61 :@.4 61 2.4 - 61 .1.2 61 o 1 3..2 Z..:" fo-i " Quo I-AS 12 146 @e - 5 142 J.? 142 @5.3 1411 z .5 14C 1.3 142 3.1 1,, 1 C lit C Z., 14 2.67 2 11; 3.1 27E 2. 4@t 2.67 ::i6'Udj. 27Z 2.8 278 2.4 /_77 3.1 Z76 :3.3 2 77 Z 275 1.3 27T 10" Juu-, 4.1;, JOU 517J 2.7 5-16 2.1'. 581 342 564 @5.3 56U. 2.3 571' 3 1.2 5,E4 .@@ .3._ 510 2 515 /-.4 ly 2.0 C C U U io? Uco k; . 0 - C G 0 .0 0 U U. .0 0- .'o C .0 C 5 Uoj U L C C .0 0 . J -U U C_ ; L) : C G C U C C UNI)EA Z, 5-00 U .0 C C" C j j . 0- U C .0- GEOGAAPhIC, K -"G ION - N0RTkfEA.SA_ 241 Z.b 241 2. 1 244 3.2 245 3.4 242 2.3 239 1,3 245 3.6 .@4C -1.2 23@i t-e Z-t -H r 7.v '3. 2 319 2.3 315 1,i 3 315 -3o2 32C. 2.1 31l 2.z 2.. 5@8_ @NORt Fs4TEAL 312 2.7 31" 2 . 21. J1,; 3.0 :@@ I - SOUTH E64 2. J 2otj 2.1 2 7 U 3.2), Z7 1, 3.4 kbb z . 3 267.-I.L 271 3..3-, 4 2ot 2.o 2.79, '-'2 WEST '2_'L 3.U 237 2.6 z5o 3@2 3.4 251 2. i3 256 2 i 5 6 2.7 257 2. 3 i 2.70 METRO/CITY TYP,E CE14TRA 114.j 2.9 1S5 .2.4 195 3.1 195 3.4 AS4 2.3 193 li2 @IS5 342 IS4-3.3 IS3 Z..o __ 2.6-8 T-; 2.67 SUBUR A !o@7 2.7 57J 2.4 7 6 3.2 576 3. @o 575 2.5 570 1.2 518 3.2 _I 571 Z.,t 3o 2. 6-f -1-- 2.2 314 1.3 @@G 3.3 3 1 3.2 31.5 2.4 313 2.e 215 2.( 3iE 3.1 -iz2 3.z 317 FORM -OF GOV RN'm;N1 - 34 'IL 26-. 2.6 267 2.2 2og .0 272 3o 2, 2bS 2.3 262 1.3 27t a .4 266 3.2 264 2. U_ 2.58 MAYOR'CO .750. 1.2- 75E 3.1. 755 3,.2 751 2.5 3 2.69 COUNCIL- ANAG 1-' 3 2.4 7it) 3.2 7 _') 7 1.3 754., 2 o4 COMMISSION 31 z.6 :>z Z. C :)3 3.2 @.4 33 2ol 33 1.0 33 3.;3 33 3.1 33 2 .3 7 2.56 -MWN MEETING 24 Z.U zj 1.6 -24 @- .7 z4 :3 .6 ;@5 1 .'d 25 1.; i 25 3'. o 24 3.2 L. t> :REP.; TOWN'MUTIAG 6 3.0 i.E 7 3.1 - f -i 6 Zo3 7 1.4 k 3 .3@: t. 1.0 __4y_s'7-q qi@ Tqmn calculated f everit TABLE 6 ,COUNTY RATED SEVERITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS (I=NC P968LEMI 5'=@@ EV CR E PRL-E;L E141 A STHFTICS A IR GKQwl)i LANG USE , 1'@L, I S F R AD I A TI ON SuLIL WSIE WST VrEP IATE.@_ -SPLY W E I GHTED WEIGHTED -WEIGHTED-. WE GHTED WEIGHTED - WE I GHTED WEIGHTED WEIGHTED WE I GHTE AVERAGE N6 . MgAN' N K -0- @cAN _J\C. . P, AN N6, el LAN N 1_1 L A N NU. MLAN NO . ilLAN K G PLAN h L. I'LAN TCTAL., bLL.COUNTIES 16 8 2.7 169 2.5 17C 3.3.-.. 172 3.6* 146 9 2 ..-i 179 1.*-3 173 3.7 171 5 16E 2.8 25 2.86 POPULtTION CROUP CVER 5Qj,0uo -25 ..7 Z5 3.1. 25 3.3 25 3.7 25 3.0 25 1.2 25 3.7 25 3.7 24 2 5 0, J-!, i u ci 2.5 2 _99 20 2.,Q Z6 Z e 27 3 27 3.5 27 ;@.4 71.3 27 3.8 27 4.1 27 2.1) 5 3. 66_' 10 0 2 @)Ut u U 54 2.u 54 2:5- 54 3.4 [email protected] 5 @ 2.3 iA l.n @6 3.7 t3.3 55 3.u 7 5(;' Jcu-lo@j' uou . I _-! 63 2.5 6/1 2.C 64 3.1 6!) 3 6211.9 64 1.5 65 3.6- c- 23. 5 62 2.7 2.68 25iOOC- 5 L;, 0 00 c .0 c c c 0 U u u c .0 c .0 r, k) c 10, ca@;- Z5,oou 0 .0 c . tl 0 J 0 j c Q c 0 L C c 0 - 5 C"@;- lj,6uu u .0 0 c L 6 U o u tLj- C -.0. Q .0 5, OLU U 0 c c 0 G C c c C . tj u 2,5uo c k; c o .0 0 -.0 0 u C. .0 c u .__uEoGHkPHK REGION 39 2.9 38 ?.3 4 li 3.1 40 3.6 2.1 N.Lf0h C:ATPtL' 4C 1.A C 4.C 2s. :3. s 3S 2.7 7 _6 46 2.4 4 d k..3 46 3.2 4o 3.4 @u 2.2 45 1 . lit 3.7 1!. 4 45 S@'Q f H 51 2.7 .53 51 3.6 53 6 52 4.3 5;i 1.4 5ei 3 .0 5 t 51 3.u wL s I . __7_ 0 -2.,91_ 32 2.6 32 i . -1 33 3.2 3 z$ 3.7 33 2.4 33 1.2 2Y 1.1 3.2 33 2.6 6 2.83 mETAG Sl@'lnjzi Xr-T@ 2.7 115 2.6 116 3.5 111 z$. 7 117 2.4 116 1.2 116 3.7 116 3.5 115 2.9 1. 2.9f K C -.1 M '.z* T k,'j 2.5 54 2.1 !@4 3.U 55 3 5z 2 . L@ .54 1.5 @5 3.51 @2 J. @5 53 2.6 2 i@c@m CF 6f1JVt9,Ni%ILlNl 66 5 66 2.7 3 . 67 3.7 6Z3 2.4 68 l.i c6 @.7 t E-3. 5 6 7 2.6_@L' 2.8@ W WITH ADMINISTRATOP 2-80 J tFuUT A MlaSTRATbll 5A 2.6 2.5 55 3.2 55 3. !)2 2.1 53 1. 5 3'. 6 53 3.5 53 2.6 48 z. 48 3.3 5u 3.6 A%i 2 . 3 4S :1.2 46 3. U-7 2-86- 50 .3 c *Averago mean calculated from mean severity scgres TABLE 7. CITY RANKED IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENT AS ISSUE 'NO* OF ENVIR CQN- ENVIA CCN- SIDERED SIDEkED I IV, F c R REPURT ING. @.----M-05 1- IMP'A LEAST NO. I A NO. I A T CT AL TI s IG81 3A5 32 157 15 POPULtAtION GROUP 'OVER 500tQ00 .8 2 25 2 25 250,000-500,000 18 2 11 3 17 10.0-1, 9.0-0-2 5-0 v 0 C 0 1 13 21 --- 17---2-8-- A9 35 113 14 25,000- 50,000 276 1 e 28 5 -3' 19 lotooo- 25,000 578 2CI 35 -63 11 51000- lorooo 0 0 0 0 0 2#500-, 59000 C C. a 0 C UNCER 2000 a 0 0 0 0 NCRThEAST 242 23 36 15 NCRTI-1 CENTRAL 316 92 29 48. 15 SOUTH 267 85 32 45 17 WEST 256 112 44 28@ 11 ,METRO/CITY TYPE CENTRAL 192 50 26 40 21 SUBURBAN 573 2C6 36 64 11 INDEPENDENT 316 eg 28 53 FCHM CF GOVERNMENT MAYCF*C0U14ClL 265 .74 28. 49 @CCUNCIL-MANAGER 755 2196 34 10C 13 CUMMISSION 30 4 L3 6 20 TGWN MEETING ..24 S 38 1 4 REP. TOwti MEETINC 7 2 29 1 14 TABLE 8 CITY RANKED LOCAL ISSUES (1-:MC-ST IMPORTANT, ]5=-l-E-AS-T) CR IME E f) U jVf-j-C7N HSG/UREAN TAXES TRANS I-jkt- W @-L FAKE M GH r AT 1 U14 -MEAN 4 MtAN IRL 4 N 0 MEAN A N m LTN MEAN M MEAN TurA-, ALL CII I L 5 872 3.1 1 Z.S 9214 3.10 771. 2.9. 8(-,U 2 .4 t, 3 2@. 4 z78 3. 1; 22b 2.C PL)PULtT 1014 CRIJUP OVE" 5cilooo 7 2.7 62,8 .5 2.4 7 3.1 2 3 @,5 2 2.3 'N - 25-i),0U0-50UvUUU 16 2.3 .12 3.Z 15 3.7 16 2.7 1Z 2.4 10 3.5 4 4.5 41, J.2 -1 19 3.4 1.6 101. 1 COU-2560 Ucc) 4 C-72 .5 48 3.1 49 2.7 3.1 40 3.6 16 5c,CuG-loJ,oG-u 119 3.0 1@ I Z.9 1U3 2.9 1 L@ 2.5 85 3.5 3 5 4.C 4E 1.7 25P060- Uv UOU 222 3,0 215 J.G 223 3.U .193 Z.9 Z @(-' 6 2.4 173 3.4 74 4.0 15 e 1.8 458 3.3 --7@6 @@2. b 515 2.9 4U4 Z.9 46:3 Z.4 317 1-40 -3.8 122 202 lul Goo- u u 0 - 0 .0 L", c 0 .0 0 .0 U u 0 .0 c c .5,ouc- lo,uuo c .0 2,50c- 0 u u 0 .0 0 c .0 UNOLR @@, @JU 0 .0 L C o .0 .0 u :0 C) .0 c 0 c c .GECGk, APHI C k LG WN Njl(l FtAS I . . 182 3.2 2 0 2.7 206 3 a-3 16U 3.1 2@17 1.9 136 3.5 56 4.1 41 2.2 NCRTH CLf4l kAL 247 3.1 i38 3.C 266 3-1 221 2-9 24b.5 Z.2 195 @.5 75 3.8 6S I.S S@@UTH 228 3.0 ilz 2. @; 1222 3.0 213 Z.6 LIU 4.1 154 3.1 76 Z! .8 rl 6 I.S WES1 .215 3.0 194 .2. @228 2.6 1T7 3.1 188 2 . 8 147 -3 . 5 9 3.8 61@ 2.0 METtiU/ClTY lY .. PE .45 1 E- CLNTtAl- 15Z 2.8 1@3 E 3.'l 152 302 158 2.7 134. 2. 6 .115 3.3 6E 3 9 4S4 3.1 45S 2.b :5- 0 @ 2.9 34 5 3.2 4-b5 2 3 35A 3.5 icl SUBURBAN 4.0 '. '' W @@ i b 3.Z 250 26z I ?- 8 Z.6 ;@41 Z:5 163 3.4 Ics 1 614 1.5 F G.-IM C F --cu -vt N M L r4'r 45 2.C MAY 0 k- CGUN L I L @ .20@ 3.1 196 3.c 216 3.1 198 2.9 231 2.2 160 3.4 85 3.7 622 3.1 5S4 2.S 655 2.9 539 -2.9 -5-74 Z . b, 4 3 Y3 .4 11E 3.9 17C 2.0 L C u MM is S 1J14 ku 12.6 Za -2. , @4 3 .7 lez 2.b 23 2.1 21 3.4 S 3.8 1.5 16 - 14 .0 2-1, 2.5 3 Z.7 12 4.Z 24 T@ 11LE, FG 1.5. 14 4.u 14 4.0 3. C, -f. -7 --5 3 . -x-, 5 3 . T .2. u 3.0 0 .0 8 Z 5.0 1 1.0 TABLE 9. CITY STATEMENT OF'ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY NOW OF HAVE HAVE KGT ADOPTION ADOPTED A AUOPTED A -UhUER CGN- R Ef 0 R T I N G S7A 1EMENT STATEVENI 510ERATION (A) NC.8 A A NO. % A NC. % A TOTALt, ALL C-ITIES 1094 215@-, 20 622 57 ;"257-23 TOPULATION GROUP QVER 500vOOO 10 5 3 30 2 @20 250 9 000-500, 000 is. 5 28 9 50 4, -:22 18 3 C 26, 4 00,000-25.Gloco 3 16 '27 50,000-100,000 142 37 26 @65 46 40 .28 25tOOO- 50,000 279 56- 20 169 61 54 19 10,000- 259000 5e5 S4 -16 350 60 14124 5,000- 10,000. 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 30, 2,500- 51000 0 0 0 0 c 0 0- WDER 22 5ou 0- 0 0 0 .0 @G'EGGRAPHIC REGION NG,RTHEAST 249 26 151 61 7Z 29 ..NORTH CENTRAL 318 47 '15 21-2 67 -59 19 @OUTH 46 17 169 63 @54 20 WEST 258. S6 37 9c @5 72 28 METRO/CITY TYPE CENTRAL 192 50 26 101 53 41 21, -SUBURBAN :579 117 20 3G6 53 15.6 27 INDEPENDENT 323 /48 15 215 67 60 19 FCRM EF GOVERNMENI f4AYGP--@C0Ut4C IL 275 r 56 2t- 145 53 74 27 CGUNCIL-MANAGEk 753 148 2f 165 22 Q 44C. 58 compissioN 33 7 21 2t; 61 6 18 TOWN MEETING 25 3 12 15 60 T 26 REP. TOWN MEETING 8 1 13 2 25 63 OOT v) n m X ol Z m C P.- N rl L) 0 rr. r, c r- -,o C;I, --4 r.E c E. r, c-, :7 Ln c Ul < v --I @i' c -x - >, -;r. , ir. c ;r@ ;z C) cn P.@ U; C-, kn c c c-, r, C: :Pc rr = --l C-1 --4 --1 -4" 'X, M . . . . . . . . '.. PO - 7' -r M t@ x %,rc c- W , V. -n rr, > *> C-) V! 7-,Z r- - Ni r-, C. C,, C- IT 1 0 C, m < C@l 0@ rv U; C',u c r, rr; c v f- U. c c c c 0 C, C, r- C". C.c c c C", C@ rr. cl, Clc C,c Cl. c Ml Co, C.C C:c C C@ cr, > 3: 0 u@ --j M rn N) rr, -.4 U, %P Lo M rp C:@ Cf, C., -4 C a a .I m M. C@l C." x 0 C) C-' t.- N; N, 4, C, C, C, U 0 0 0 C, r', 7 r j i--" @fll In (71 Lr C, c W W Lo N n L@ Lo N C) n c N C, 0 t.- P- m 41 All' vp N r7. co C, cl, (r, ru m rl. rn C, C', C: C W C a, C.: U; V r- c C@ 0, C.@; -4 X) U" cr Ic C C 0 L.: CC V N) 77 tv Cd -,I V, 01 Cl %.r c 0 C, P-- @rL C; Z c U W I.- w C I.- C.) N N N c c c r, m IC -4 C c C, LO c C; c z t-r @c --j c c C-1 z rv N) 1, 03 Lo 1., 41 N, N NJ rl- N) Uj pl W I, Lj ri 0 6 t r.n 'n .1, 10 w n 0 bi a- 0 N.) C), C, Ln -j C; -.j li. 11 C, C, c Z. C), rr -L r) .Jl I Cl TABLE I I COUNTY STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY NO (IF HAVE HAVE NCT ACOPTICN AD-OPTED A ADOPTEO A UNUER CfJN- REPORTING STAIEMENI 5 TA 7 E; VIE N ISIDERATICN (A) N0.8 % A NO. A A NC. Y4 ' A TIOTAL9 ALL COUNTIES 172 46 27 84 49 42 24 POPULATION GROUP OVER 5009000 24 7 2S 8 33 9. 38 -.-2-5011000- 5-0 0 27 9 33 12 4*4 6 22 56 17 3C 27 48 12 21 50.Ugo-c-100.1-goo 65 13 20 37 57 15 23 0 0 C c 0 0 lot-poo-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 2t5CjC- 5-1000 0 a O__ 0 0 0 0 UNoio__i,@60 0 c 0 a 0 0 ,GEGGRAPHIC REGION NORTIJAST .40 11 28 .18 45 11 28 NcKTh CLNTRAL 46 9 20 23 5C 14 30 _5__QQ_T H 54 12 22 33 61 9 17 WEST 32' 14 44 10 31 0 25 METRC STATUS METRO 117 27 56 48 29 25 NCN METRO 55 14 25 28 51 13 24 FQRM EF GOVERNMENT WITHOUT ADMINISTRATOR 55 16 29 28 51 11 20 WITh ADMINF',ST-RATQR- 67 21 31 2.9 43 17 25 UNKNCWN 50 9 18 27 54 14 28 zol T M7 :r 7. -t r., T V) 7 7 rr, c w N rl C. n ri, -4 n c- r-, c% o- Z N: V, C, V. < -- --q w LA C -r 7. n cl, Ij V@ o ul C* C.) C. 11, c > M %T, C, C-, C',@C 17 C -r. m vi. n- C@ rI C-. 0 cl) V. --J -4 -4. K* C- f-, C. C- C'. t-- C,@ n b. C-, 7 1. c-, C.- r- e, < Vi 1> Cl C., C, C, C@,, c c c > r, C@ c c: C-@ 'n c C: 7- -4 f, C, C: C. c -u -4 C. Ln > -4 > @ 'v M rr. -4 M ni -j m m n C@ C) C) C., 0 C. C-. r-. C@ 4r. r, C@ en C- ri n C., X n C.) 0 C', C'. C-, r-@ n C', c n n C, r) 0 n n C) I-- 4r. C, %j: C, C-1 0- t- C. C-1 C-. r@ C-) C-- -4 m 'm C-1 -r -j PC -4 c -C@ N W C C; C C C N@ tj@ L@ 10 @.Pl 7 rn --4 m U.; N N' " I-. W N C, C. c 4111- C. w N C C C C C U@ a, w 41 c a@ c C7, @- C @z Cl w w w w C n C Cj to <-,, fv C, -4 a@ c M I- C: Ic U, N@ ho -4 W LU N C@ cl, 0 C.) 0 N. Ul N n to rv r1i Lj@l r, %.n w L- C, ky,, A- f,* F,% I.- U., N) K@ W Lij Ili I.- CC n n C') n (n Cb N In Cn cz r" C-. _j "r ol C., w @j cio z 0 11 In CL 1-1 cl@cl@ -t- TABLE 13 CITY ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT HAS ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT Number Part of Does Not Reporting Separate Another Aqcy. Total Have Dept. No. % No. % No. % No. % Total, All Cities 1090 8o - 7 173 16 253 23 837 77 Population Group Over 500,000 10 3 30 3 30 6 60 4 40 250,000-500,000 18 3 17 10 56 13 72 5 28 100,000-250,000 57 3 5 20 35 23 40 34 60 50,000-100,000 142 15 11 29 20 44 31 98 69 25,000- 50,000 28o 20- 7 47 17 67 24 213 76 10,000- 25,000 583 36 6 64 11 100 17 483 83 CD w Geographic Region Northeast 245 28 11 30 12 58 24 187 76 North Central 318 29 .9 46 14 75 24 243 76 South 266 10 4 32 12 42 16 224 84 West 261 13 5 65 25 78 30 183 70 Metro Status Central 191 19 10 45 24 64 3@ 127 66 Suburban 580 48 8 97 17 145 25 435 75 Independent 319 13 4 31 10 44 14 275 86 Form of Government Mayor-Council 269 31 12 40 15 71 26 198 74 Council-Manager 755 46 6 122 16 168 22 587 78 Other 66 3 5 11 17 14 21 52 79 TABLE 14. CITY STAFF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE F DOES h0l NO* OF HAS STAF (@-OMMITTEE HAVE-SL&FF REPORTING c 0 1 jjj-E- (-A NQ. X A NO TQTALjp ALL CIT Es 1086 PGFV QN I AT L -QROOP CVER 5G0#-Q00 10 4 40 6 6C 17 7 41 10 59 1.9 Q t-Q 9 P- 12 @@Q,-Q C 0- 57 16 26 41 72 5,q f 9-9q- 1-0 pir Ap 141 37 26 104 74 25-1-1199- @09-9PQ 278 si 19 225 81 QQQ -_45-t Q@ o 5-83- IC4 18 479 82. -5@1 0 0-0----lo I QQQ- 0 0 0 --o. -c _500 c 0 0 0 0 UNDER 2-t..5kq 0 0 0 0 0 ION NCRTI-.EAST 244 r5 23 77 ---hQRj.h- CENTRAL @18 59 19 259 -81 64 27 0 2,3.7. 190 WEST 260 EO 31 iso 69 AETA-0 111 TYPE -CINTFAL 189 43 23 f46 77 -S-UBURBAN 579 137 24 442 761- INCEPENDENT 318 41 13, -2-77- 81 FCRM 'CF 'GOVERNMENT -t@:YC P--:QQUNC IL 269 k4 24 205 76 CCUNCIL-MANAGER 753 137 18 616 82 c.ammis-s- I ON .32 6 is 26 8 1.6 @-IOWNJI@ETING 24 9 36 15 63 8 5 63 3 TABLE 15. ICIAL DESIGNATED CITY ENVIRONMENTAL OFF NO. OF OFFICIAL OFFICIAL HAS BEEN HAS NCT BEEN lil-P-OR T-fN -Gbf@-1--G*--N'- A T ED UESIGAA TIEC- (Al NO,*$ -4 A NO- A A' TOTALy. ALL C IT US 1,042 4-14 40 628 -6C PCPULATION GROUP OVER 5gopooo S. 6 67 3 33 Z5O,OO.C-5O*0tOOO, 17 12. 71 5 29 5 7' 23, 40 34 6,0 50wOOO-lO0r-OOO q 139 7 48- 72 52 0 0 0 266 1 co 38 166 62 lotooo- 25to@oo 554 2C6 37 34.8 63 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 UNDER .506- 0 0 C GEQC-@-APHIC REGION NCRTI@EAST 232 EC 34 152 66 NQRT* CLNTRAL 302 122 40 180 60, SOUTH 255 '18. 31 177 6S WEST 253 134 53 119 47 METRO/CITY -TYp E CENTRAL 187 EO 43 107 57 --SUBURBAN 550 22 7 4-1 323 5 9: INCEPENDENT 3 C 5.,, 10- 35 IS8 65 FCRM--g-F GOVERNMENT MPYQF-@CUUNCIL 248 IC6 43 142 57 CCUNC IL-MANAGER 734 212 40 442 60 CGMMISSION 31 23 24 77 TCoh MEETING .22 6 27 L6 73 REP* TUWN MEETING 7 3 43 4 57 9 o,;T Ll i.-, C, n MIU co W. X (z K C. 1 I;u x 0 C7 N rn -1 .-4:@ --4 1- X M 0A 0' v X rl; X> x V -n ; M;a o;Q f@ @o a r) 1> N O,Q C.1!0 T rn r- r). v 2. m Lj :K; @c -P @o rn.0 J@ x K 3, vn rn G) r- @-- @11 - q, -4 m X Q 10 m 4- LU @-,4, 0- -N N 0 0, 1.- (A m w N Ul 00 ri 0 N pq P.- J@ P. cl, a %A *- w kA w 0 0@ 0 is' m COONOD Qj co Go .10 c 0000, z 0- N 0 UJ -4 co N [email protected] OD 000 -@Uj -4 N N N -4 z Z, oo "o V a, 0, ki. V 0@ vi 0@: -P 01 cPl 01 -Pico W :t,; 0:0 4, 0 0 0 OD V-4 z N N 0 N %A 0 0 0 Q W,10 N N N %0 En O@o -4 4; V ol 4:-J!-4 ln lcy@:01 a, 01 z %,n (P W 0,.O,r,) 4- Q 0 v @A;-4 m m z N w 0 4-4 0,1-40 -4 ol 000. 0@ CONNN xi ., . 0 %.n. Wn N P,!w %.n 4-41:%-n N 4-:V O@ O@ G. 0.0.0 N W cr, %.n w U-0 10 P@ 1 000 0 un --4-4 iN P- z I- w 0 NIOC 41 P-4- w W4- COON > i4A X 'n Lu @w W.0 14, m un a Go 41 a 0 0 WjW -4 w w 0 -P v) 3c m m X z N P. LJ: P, 4' < a P-0 %Q 0 L-1 tx@!@ i,0- V:-4100 Q 0 0 P-4114 P- N N 4 m 0 r, X 0 0 0 0 03!0 0 W -4 -4 b-- N 0 10 -4 110@41 0 ol co %A 0 0 co W10 N W Uj %0 -1 i @ @ . 1 1'. Z o w :0 C 0@ Co 41 Co. -4 -4 cr, 0@ OD -4 cp@lo,.()@ 010 -4 -c VIP- 41 i-4 0 N D 0 010 CD V -4 -4 0.0 41 C, z N N DM 0 0 0 co -4141%0 %0 0 0 0 0 -4 co P@ W, 110 X X 0 0 N W W 0 w N W V W W 0 w Z -v 0,0 0 w P- Lo 04- N 0 0 0 U" t." W W W 0 Q@ Itl 11.0 4- N, 73 LOt-, ;o "Iniclo m 0 0 M 2: (A Z,;e m Q 01, z w V, c- w m c 0 @--X z m m C; Q 0 0 41LI IJN W` o --4,;o m nl. V X :L X x vio 0@0 oioio > C'3 olto O>X 0 M:tn r- a-m- 1 0 im V)l u 0 m Z"o %n < A@ - . 0 N 4@ 10 0 Q z2m -4 A, W C) -P. 1r, G) p.- ;9 -C > m m C) 4 V. r- 0 10 @o 10 %Q 0 -4 m m 'Dio @Di%o ID @o a c m 10%01010 X z z 3@, ,n irri Z> N 4, LU 10 41 C@ LU 4@ w 01 4- !N W Mg@ N 0 -4 N a, 0 coo -410 Vk N m N N ll@ P. .4 m N P- P- co co C -4 Us 4' 0 0 0060NO %n 0, ;9 cl w.4, W.Vq @n Q@ -$@, a x -4 0 -4 Q Wq Nim 0 0 0 0- -4 0 %A 0 -4 N 1.- .4 N v I- N OWN" P.- z N ka 4' -4 -4 -4 0 0 0 0- N N UJ %A z z (A z v QVI a, -4 kA @4 C@ Ln 'J" %A a, L" 0, lo@ 1 0 .4 C"a C@ 0 %A w 0 w @o -4 0. c 0 41 Cc 0,'%A 0 -41 0@ 0 z w N W W N W 0 w N Nl@ N cQQ%Q%0 0 ol%n 91 ol:%A V, V1 -4 C, 0@ a, -4 0-14n 0 Q@ z 0 -4. U@ GO W ON 4w 0- N lo@o 0 0 to > r 14 CON N U@ W 41 N %N 4- WN,P- fTl Ni 1- 0 0, Nll-- 0 0 P-N V W w Z,C) :2. -4 47, Q@ 01. a, -4 GI -4!C;l vl@o C@ -40 -4 Cyl ul 0- w .4 WWNW 000WIMIN00 0 AA z @4 N P] 01 N N w N N P@ C, N C. w N 41 0 0,40 0 Coo -4 W @w p vv X > cr, %n a,, %A 0, W Ij w :0, %Alod m 0 0 tW p- M col.@, 0 N -v -4 0 0 0 wo - 4A -4 > Cl, N 1-.-! 4, w lwilw- N NIN N I., 'D C'Z _rn IN 0-10 NIM ul:,D W w -4 00 0 0.0 -4 %0 O'Ni N m Q c') 0, %.n. -4 . OAA %A (11 01 0@ 1-4 Q. -4 0@-4 us Qi %D 0 0, 0,0 NIN 010 0 .@-4 C, N. un; N w -ol N W.W -C N NjO 1- 0- 19 w w Z 14A VlAw 01 01 a. -.n 0@ C, 0 0@ vl!,%n! a, a, C, -4'W -41 C)i -41 Go 1-n N w W 0 0 0 a, W 0, N witillN 4' io. N w W:N N IM N 1- w tq C@ P- -4 D w 01. 0 W 0 000%pl.-P. CON, -4 ;a 0@ V %.n vu ol w 10, Q@ 4- tn -4 @.h im 01 0 -4 W N @n io -4 @Q c 0 w W Ni w a, N 41 P. Q 0- 1--!L-J N 0 x 1 ol oi -4 W C, wl 0, V, 10 W 010,C) ol N wU), 106 jo, 80T m C14 0 M% X" CA 7- 7 rr r) (n r, rn C, C*. c, v < -0 rr r. --4 C-.i -4 rr. @L r- r, -j- %, -A) %," C C n C5 0 C, b. 3: C-1 C. I.; CD CI) 0 C-@ VI --i C, M Cn e-@ C_; C- C, C, c C, C, -. b. X@ rr (7. C, L., C- C- rr, Z. -.4 V. V, r Z ;l, 0 C kr C@ 0 C.; 0 C C', n rr > rl . . . . . . . C, ;,@, C) C'. C C.; C. C C. C C 0 rrl b.. n C-. c L.) C, c- C@ c 0.-0 X C, C. C; 0 C 0 0 C rr 2: ? t- P- x ml W fi@ -.J to J v, ol 0, 1- w " --4 Z! tr 0 tv, A, 0 W W &I CD 3t ):_ < FT f- f-0 z -4 LI .91 W n n cj e" tx v -Q P-m- LlIl C. C, 41 j 0- -1 W c C, C@ n cm Ln n ITS m co jc- 0, N (.0, w 0 co C C, P.- c C, 41 Pw- C.; C Cr k w M. CA 0 0 C, t, 0 0 0 C', a (7, W 0 0 V. `Iw4 P- C C, C. CY, 0 C., c V. w C- C, Il- m CI C, a b.. C: %6 7.' c cj C6 c C Ic c Ul V N $- 0 c IC C, 41 --j U, %0 41 V; w N OD a to P.- P.- W C:) 'r r, %r n f- r) as I.- 1A, 4, n K: C) U, Lw K@ N, N to w NI L,@ N) @- "I L) 4.1 t-@ -j f%, ts fIj 21 'n 0- C-1 c@- cz 21. C- C) cl P-- C-11 0 1-- rv %r P.- (r. (%j C", C.-@ W N C, M N -4 W1 L 1 %01 Cj C-1 I I 601 In c m -4 in e% c 10* fr. tn OJO 2 P-;NAun IC;%A l'o ;.4 Err, I I C, @ 2 x 7. C-1 M a!-4 im @>! w @L" C)!o 0 b 10 bl, r in v X W 1' 6. 1-n m Wis. im n;c !in I%A 1-4 3E m I C:10! !'o m V. i Z 0 .-% L- 7< !, Z b. Z.< z 0, Z nlrn -4 -4 0 - io a 0 10 tin n: m 0 230 "" M -C 4 1 or, Z 0 10 @* 0. m M to ic 10 i@ 0 0 m 10 m z CA C) Nj 11- r C@ N 00 N co a & W 0- rr > rn w 0% -j f%i 0@ ftj a J11, ab N a 0 a 0 0, 0 j W A- 01 -41 z r- C@ n rn 0 0- a .0 40 cal N CPl I- r% N 4, a, N c I en JI- rr. > -i I 104 rn p- w 6-0 de 0.0 0, .91 %0 %a 4n 0 vn Co rri rn rn %m Cl) n n 0 Cb P- CD 04,o 00 Cal 0 w 40 0 0 w Cal to Nb 1= -M r,:rr. 1-C .0 P-A I-- In rn n 10 6-W CD w 10, CD tin C5 C5 ftj w N %D -4 C) %0 m n rn rn n N 0 0- 0, 0 OD es o a im kn." co 4'. w %0 -n lo 7- Fn n .0- N %Q CD %0 .91 17 > %D 4- tv LU a. w CD %A K) 6e rrOn w Ul .91 w Ul N w A, w w W &@ w w 0-0-400 coo 0& k"LAK)w 41- CD 10 to N 0aw"IN cal .4 -J@ ni coo 10, co %A & 0 to %A, TABLE 20 PRIMARY ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF DESIGNATED OFFICIAL Have Number Provide Develop Supervise Operational Reporting Advice Pr6dtams Activities Responsibility (A) No. VA) No. %(AT No. %(A) No. %(A) Chief Executive 106 70 66 55 52 59 56 44 42 Mayor-Council 26 15 58' 12 46 15 58 8 31 Council-Manager 79 55 70 43 54 43 54 36 46 Staff Member in Chief 41 31 76 2o 49 19 46 22 54 Executive Office Mayor-Council 9 6 67 @,4 44 3 33 3 33 Council-Manager 32 25 78 .16 50 16 50 19 59 Head of Environment 50 38 76 38 76 40 8o 41 82 Department Mayor-Council 10 9 90 8 8o ..8 8o 8 80. Council-Manager 25 72 28 18 36 - 69 26 .29 @l Head of Another 145 99 68 63 43 80 55 74 51 Department Mayor-Council. 44 31 70 .2o 45 .2.7 61 25 57 Council-Manager 93 62 67 37 40 47 51' -42 45 Total (incl. other) 414 283 68 202 49 227 55 212 51._ Mayor-Council 106 69 65 50 47 59 56 49 _46. Council-Manager 292 204 70 143 49 i.56 53 15-1, 52 TABLE 21 COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT HAS ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT Part of Does Not Number Another Have.Envir. Reporting Separate Agency Total Department (A) No. % No. % No. % No. % Total,, IAll Counties 169 30 18 59 35 93 55 76 45 Population Group Over 560,000 25, 7 28 io 4o 17 68 8 32 -250,000-500,000 27 1 4 12 44 14 52 13 48 100,000-250,000 54 13 24 18 33 32 59 22 41 50,000-100,000 63 9 14 -19 30 30 48 33 52 Geographic Region FA Northeast 39 8 21 14 36 23 59 16 41 North Central 45 6 13 18 40 25 56 20 44 --South 52 11 21 .15 29 26 50 26 50 West 33 5 15 12 36 19 58 .14 42 Metro Status, Metro 115 20 17 42 37 63 55 52 45 Non Metro 54 10 19 17 31 30 56 24 44 Form of Government Without Administrator 54 9 17 14 26 24 44 30 56 With Administrator 67 10 15 27 40 39 58 28 42 Unknown 48 11 23 18 38 30 63 18 38 ZTT 7 0 z N 0 a m m < OM C: L C, @hj 10 .0 cc: z j.-r X -4 @-q -4 rn to ie @, r- M :r n 3m: m "k], 6 o:,o %w 2: CT m 'OP Ia. io 0 !a Lft -.4 >- 1-4 cc I@11 a 0 !a a a 0 4n CA aw z 00 .0 C 00 M a tA m z V c 2% tv. %A $-A w w 10 U) A' .9% w in 10 M 0 cl -4.J %0 %0 %010 C3 a m 0 0 W LA -1 4, 1D. rr, CO: i con X; - www LU & N LA' N 4% W, %A @M' NJ 0M.P.M V, D 0 V 41 Lrl I< DESIGNATED COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICIAL NO. OF OFFICIAL OFFICIAL HAS BEEN HAS N07 BEEN REPORTING DE,SIGNATEO. DES:IGNAT-EC .(A) N'O 0-8 % A N10. I :A TOTALt ALL COUNT I'ES 1-63L 18@ 48' 65 5 2@@ PCPULATION GROUP WER 5009000 22' 16 73. 6 27 2501-QA@7@QQ 000 27 12 :44 15 56 1009000-.250-000 51 26 51 25 49 63 24' 38 2 A Qo@-1_0090 0 39 259000- 501000 0- 0 .0 0 0 lOtO O@- 251000 0 0 0 0 0 0- 10900,0 0 c '01 0 0 21500-- 51000 0 0 0 0 0 UNDER 29500 0 0 o 0 0 G90GRAPI-IC REGION NORTI-EAST 38 18 41 20 53 NCRTH CENTRAL 4 1 11. 4c 26 6C 5 25 4e 2 NEST 30 le 4 C 12 40 METPO STATUS METRO 110 53 46 57 52 NCN METRO 53.. 25 47 28 53 FCRM CF GOVERNMENT WITHOOT ADMINISTRATOR 51 15 29 36 71 W I Th-ADM IN I STRATOR 64 4L 64 93 @6 UNKNCO 48 22 46 26 54 C) C 2' :E r, m r) m r-I 1;. f I I r: r@-," n r) z 1, 11 C@ tj'@ -Z 7, -1 -Z 7 --1 A: Ln c ;1: m In 6.) Lr. C., @n C, r-,. C: m :r: -'. " @ -! - If; . . . . . . . . I, r-, rn -.t -r k, 71 C C, C, CiCb. X C -n I-P @n C, C; r_ C. 0 C, C,V" :r -4 -4 C: r, r) C: > 0 U. rv Ly. V, 0 C z 7- C; U. C@ %-, 0 V Cl n C: 0 tP m .. . . . . . a) C'71 (n. C-. cl, C. r- 0 c, cl, r. r, e' co c cl. 0 0 C, 3, rr c, 0 0 N 41 -4 m CA W o- rr, n n e,@ el) m 41 1' .9- 10 kr m A, kr. V, -I ky. 4, 41 rn Un M cz 41 10 10 c 0 c C, 0 N, 0@ @n %A -.J -.i -4 C, ol M C) ri -j NO rn c-, C: ''0", U!, N X, PQ ,C I- c -4 U, 4, ct N a c C, c M Ln W -4 Of -4 n C @-4 0, 'n -,i V, 01 @j -4 -4 14 - - -4 %T@ OG 1,.5 N@ c c C, ci 0 ow z (71 pi t, 17 M co m kp C. @r. N tr. %0 n cl, C, c u ?Q 0 N a', C, rr. ;a u -.j V, %.r C- a m rpw IX ol -j 4, 4 -4 CC Ln IC. c C, C*l c 0, 0 Ir LO rQ - tn --i C2 Pi 0. .91 V. ILI m K) i> ;a m > I, Q %.n Cr, I, Ln I, kr V, N, No 'D r@ cy, N c G c c W Z.L, 0, co -t: x m r<' N, cr- rr. G-, n n @m 0 -j N r-X > Lm -1 -1 a, 0, r), j cr% m"r er, --j w In ll rl IT In en 110 0 00now P--6to > 4 r, C- C', K3 r" .I, M. t, rl _j W LP ol n". er. -4 @j er, ft, cr. r?, m Or I- er m n -4 NP til ol @o cr. a; U@ C"nc- C,OOM a,M 7 C-1 C:@ 0 z . r.@! 7@ --j 7-' -4 M ui m I, n Uj lz w 40 .1' -4 41 @.n ft, m L@ -P, %_n V a, ul kp -4 > 7, C r. c F- u 3: X.- rr, 0 4, 0. 0 C, c C, u ilt P C, @4 - Ll ell m I%m CAA <!,a .0 0 x -4 -4 z -4 Nn vol @o "R ;X lb- w @%n @0;0 0 ic 0 Fn "V 00 jcj IC3 @o la CO -1 Ln => 1-4 -4 @o 'o lc-),n @n @C 0 i-@Ail x > rZ., ILM !L" Ln z 0 0@0 0 > PO LA rn rMa N "n Ln W 00 L" C3 -4 rr, CP m z m X m N PU w Lb) N W 00 0. m C5 In Ch 0- 0 N In NJ t" %b L" 0 0@ ol ep, 0@ a 0 0 4@ C) A f- rn rn N3 irn %.n > P- Pi U3 P- 0 Co") P- w cD '-n me @-nm i:9 m m ci in 00 ob rN rz 1> -n 4, 0, ID m C) > a 0 Ol %) a CO a) 7 1> IV .en 4- 1.- 0,0 0 L" %0 0 o o a C)!tpl-l LU rr, @o *n 01 6) to. 41 kn 41 -j C m 0 CO b- am 10 D 0 W 1w I-, @@O. rn C3 @o F 9TT X :w r%@ C) i z T -4 rn 10 he .0 !a rn 1:25 c M l: c m > a C) LA C) 10, z jo lun 10 LA16 @m !000 (A to m @C) '0 ir, a a 0 000 io a z q -4 c Cc) 0 0 0 10 -4 z w cri .4 co a C@ 004- 0% z r- z m z a,> b.- Lij b.- m o, N N cr. Lq 03 -n .4 rr z C") "i ca IA -j _4 rb m C) --I W to n n %A tw N) 0- w C) 10 m z a rn ;a Z n 0 0 dc c 0- I-A P" Ln C7 M) Wo m 0 ol CY% @j LA -C IV m C2 -4 < -P, 'O'N -4 Co -0000%0 %D N m < 'CO IQ 10. -4 -4 .14 -Z 17 0 0 %0 Cc %.n Ln CD rn rr, -n -n rn m C) rr- "D > rn r- W C) co @j 1344 !V -4 ol .(p ol 0, 1-4 -'m w -J:Lr, !%.r io, i @o ;a; m C3 L%j C3 @4- 41, co w C) 0 0;11- co %0 -P, C) -4 r- @Li ol u) w 0 n r%j I,, lo @-@4 @co LA -j --j V InT n 71Z m c C3 lc: M 0,6@m z co m m 0:00 ic v1..o tip I'm -f rn 57 X@c -< x 0 = X 4A C: X j2) In C!) "n'n i%.n in @C) @a rr ic to fmr x -4 m V Cl) 17) lei m W x TIT@u M;tA;c:;o .:n @.M!c 0 ib. 0 -.11 X CA:*- 1. In M22 !I> m 0 a .0.0 0. 0:0 L" -4 (A o ri wir- n z r, ic) lu @x IN!C) C)!0:0 in 0.0.0 ID. m 1 10 C) i m @1 @1 It 11 11 :1 1 .00 r, @; 2: c 0 2 -4 n zn! I JI.- @ Ar. z z r. Zl< z C!, !b.-;N ILA !C.N Ar 0 0 2-1 O:Ln 0 V 10 a 40 a 0 IM )> m ims.@* @0.4 '"t a ;o bwo -n rm m ialcio: -0 O'c C) 0 0 -4 m C3.0 0 0 c c X Im C@ Cc 0 o o o rn rn z z CA m fn ta Ln I- N N WN Ln N Io- N WJ- -j 1.0 -.1'8 kr. J I-- -t- W. @& W 411% 1-. 1.- co ft W oo N w 01 N C) 0 0%.0 0 CD 0 w -4 14 M m z Io X 0 c M 201. cc w 6- 3); 0 4c 0 us M. 1C., 41 1.- ers &.A 1w M N _3 0, A, a, a I- Ln k." -4 IN co MAIMI 0 oic 0 CB cyk P. 0. !D m 1-i Ln 4, 1% Ln 4s Ln J- to 4% tr Im 4% Lh LA tm@ b.- to Cb m cot()% 0, U1, W M 00 %J 0 cc N %A N I- Cl) 1CIT" 2 U1 6 -.4;*o 4c 1W N I"", (A p- (b N -j %A to 4&- a J. 0@ N Ir-4 2b. M IN 0 .4 -1 0 W@ '40, J" *" @wu '00,0 o w uj'.D -j %a 0, irr iz 17 ic 7-@ to L" N N'N 4@ 4. v L" -A f:- N 1w oleo 4* L" OD %A n - w 01 lrrf T 'I TABLE 28. CREATION.OF CITY CITIZEN ENVI-RONMENTAL BOARD NO. OF HAVE CRE- HAVE NOT --- - -------- A T-E 0- -Cl- j ZN CREATED- REPORTING -E NV I-R,-6-0- C I T Z h 8 V I NO.6' A, NO. A A -2 16" ,TCTALt ALL CITIES loeo -,-2r8 24- 8-2- POPULATION GROUP 10 5 50- 5 :50. --2509000-500tOGO 18 s 50 .9 50 16 0 1-6 o d-,2, 5 0 -9 o d-0 58 -1-8- _3 i 40 -6-A- 509COO-1009000 140 46 33'' 94 61 -0 -0 0 273 68 25 205 75 1-0, t 0 0 9--2.5-90 _0 0 581 112 19 469 81 5100c- 109000. c c 0 o 21500- 51, oc-O 0 0 a OD GEOGRAPHIC REGION NGRTt-.EAST 245 S5 39 150 6 f,' hLRTH..CENTRAL 311 75 24 236 76- SOUTH- 267. 39 15 228 85. WtST 257 Is .20e 61 @@LTRQ/CJTY TYP E- CENTRAL 189 5 7' 3C 132 JO SUBURBAN' 572- 157 27 415 73 INCEPENDIUIT 31S A It 14 275 86 FCRM CF GOVERNMENT' M AY 0 1;--*-COUN C IL 268 EC 3C 188 70 CCUNCIL-MANAGER 745 159 21 586 79 7-c -m- f -s- s I u N 3.4 6 IE 2.8, --82, TOWN MEErING .25 -10 4 0 15, '60 REP. TQWN MEETING 8 3 38 5 -63 TABLE 29. COMMISSIONS EXPANDED BY CITY TO INCLUDE ENVIRONMENT HAVE EXPAND ED CITIZEN PARK ANO HISTCRIC. COMMUNITY 6 OA RU S, PLANNING PRESERVATN CEVELOPil@NT Ci T-h E R N U:. A 8 NO A 6 NC. 8 NO. % 8 N rDIALI ALL CITIES 547 260 48 434 19 97 18 162 30 L34 24 POPULATION GROUP OVER 5-0-6--.06-67 1 1 100 1 100 -1 100 0 0 a 0 50,000-500rOO0 11 -2 18 8 73 9 2 18 2 18 -7 0 60 31 1,0,.0 0-2-_#,0 0 1.4 45 25 81 11 35 10 12 a 26 50, 000-1001-000 76 38 50 63 -83 15 20 20 26 ZO' 2 6' 25, 000- 50t 000 128 59 46 104 81 23 18 41 32 35 _@7 10 000- 2 51 0 00 300 146 49 78. 46 15 89 30 69 23@ 5,000- 10,000 0 c 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 buu- 59000 0 c 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a UNDER 2t@_60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P__ H_ I C k E G 10 N N08 139 62 45 lob 76 4 _N.GR VH.,-,CENT RAL 148 81 55 1 C19 74 24 16 54 36 38 26 S Q U.1 H se 5 3 54 .76 78 24, 24 39 40 23 23 WEST 162 64 40 143 88 15 q 26 16 25 15 j@@tR'd/-C-1-T-Y TYPE, CENTRAL 67 32 9 45 74 85@ 23 '26 2d 32 20 23 5UBMAN' 315 154 49 249 79 50 16 81 26 86 27 INOEPENDENT 145 67 46 111 77 24 '17 53 37 213 19 FGAM CF GOVERNMENT Y_ -C A _--@ C 0 UN C I L 151 19 52 115 76 40 26 63 42 40 -26 COUNCIL-MANAGER 360 162 45 292 81 48 13 66 24 03 23 66 m M I_s__S I ON 16: 11 69, - 12 75 3 19 @5 31 3 19 TGWN MLETING 14 36 .9 64 5 3 15 7 50 5 36 _"_@_.TUWN MEETING 6 3: 50 6 100 .1 17 1 17 3 5d_ TABLE 30 [email protected] OF CITY CITIZENS COMMISSION NO. OF- INV.i-':STIGTE CkGAI\,'l i E ELUCATE AbvisE-THE ENFOkCE LNV li,@GNiVNT COMIMLN I I Y THL GLV0@NlNb ENVIR QUAL REPORTING P801ILLME PkCG,@ARS PWAIC LIGOY - STANUARGS CTI-E:K (A) A t, 1). A fL. A Nu. 14 NIL A NO- A TOTALP ALL CIT ILS 258 IE6 I IC9 42 1.44 56 2 5 37 36 14 21 E PLPULAT, WIN GROUP CVLI( 5UU#i)JJ 5 A @o I- 2c 2 40 2 40 2 40 1 20 25up CCC-5c(;t ocu 9 7 7d 2 Z2 i E2 9 16 L; 1 11 c t; IUCtOOL-;@50PUCU le ic, 66 4 22 10 56 14 7o. 4 2z 17 5L;V@u -1()UlUUU A C' 33 72 21 4t Zo 57 -4 2' '41 .4 1@ s 25tuuu-. j,uruQu 468 !5 El 31 46 45 66 6u db 6 9 6 s lutuou- 25lucu 112 77 L 1@ 50 45 59 53 9b 68 19 17 7 b 5100(;- loilc6u c c G 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 u c- c 21,5uc- @. 9 0 L u u c 6 c c 0 0 0 k; @Q u L c u[NOLK 2v!jJj .0 c u 6 c u J, 0 u 0 c c GEOGKAPHIC RtGJjlN F. 'E A S I S5 7(; 74 48 51 63 66 -81 d5 15 16 6 8 CLifl'AAL 75 55 32 4 '43 57 67 as 11 13 Ir 7 S L: U T h 1@ 27 c@ 15 zi E 19 4'@ 9 13 2 5 W@sf 14 is- 19 39 41 84 5 10 6 1@ 49 MET.kC/CITY T YP k C L IV T @, A L 57 6 it 7 1 '26, 8 49 4C @@4 10 16 7 li SUBURBAN 71 45" 1 50, 1 @ y at 17 !1 12 6 A 3 it 77 2 0 L5 Yl -t C 91 9 @j 5 F C RA CF 6 U V RN 1.1 EN T HAYOV-1CLUAC iL ac 54 (; 6 40 t) C 52 65 6 85 16 20 4 5 COUNLIL-A;li@j',AGE;@' - , * , 15,; lic li 5s 37 6 2 2 14@) 66 17 il I t: I G c T L wo N ivi,-- E T I i% 6 8 E 6 cc -51 b Q 3 30 c c kEl-1. TLWN MLLTINL 3 2 67 2 67 2 o7 -n 100 Q u 1 33 TABLE 31. SPECIALIZED CITY CITIZEN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONS EC- NOT SPIE-C-.- REPORT-fN-G I At I z ED-J.-Allz t Q@@ -A NO.- A A. TOTAL9 ALL CITIES 54- 2-1 188 7.3 k-Up V1. A T 10 N GROUP QVER 5CO 000 5 3 -60 2 40 5 0 0. 0 0 0 9 3 33 IQ -0 A L Q Q - Q- 2. @ -9 0 0 0 18 9 50 8 44 5 -0 I-Q-0 Q@@ 1 000 46 4 9 38 63 2 5 t 0 0-9-:1-5-9 0 0 0 68 117, 25 49 72 10,000- 259000 112 18 16 86 77 0 c 0 0 0 5 0 c- 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 C UNDER 29500 Q 0 0 .0 GEOGR-i-pAIC REGION NCRrHEAST 95 17 16 69 73 NORTH CENTRAL 75 19 25 53 71 - " T H 39 8 21 29 74- WEST 49 10 20 37 76 METROICITY TYPE CENTFAL -57 19 33 33 58 SUBURA&N 157 19 12 127 81 INCEPENDENT 44 16 36 .28 64 FCPM CIF GOVERNMENT 1JA-YCP-;C0UNClL. 80 20 25 57 71 COUNCIL-MANAGtR 159 26 18 121 76 FCOMMI-S-SIUN 6 1 17 5 83 TOWN MEETING 10 4 40 3 30 i REP. TUwN MEETING 3 L 33 -2 67 TABLE 32. TYPE OF SPECIALIZED CITY CITIZEN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION CITIZEN 80 IS SPEC- AIR WER SCLID IAL IZED 1AASTE OTHER NO. X B NCO 2 8 Nc. a- NO. X 8 TGTALI ALL CITIES 66 40' fll 25 36 28 42 25 38 POPULATION GROUP OVER 5009000 3 3 140 0 0 0 0 2 67 2 50 9 000- 5009 000 3 2 67 0 0 2 67 1 33 13 8 62 1 8 1 a 3 23 50,000-1001000 5 4 SO- 3 60 14 80 1 20 25tOOO- 50POOO 20 12 60 @11 55 12 60 7 35 10,000- 259000 22 11 50 10 45 9 41 It 50 stooo- 10-1000 a c 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 29500- 5foou 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 o a U 2, 5 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 GEOGRAPHIC REGJON NORTI-,EAST 20 12 to 8 40 7 3-5 7 35 _N_,C_A_ffF_C_ENTRAL 24 15 63 11 4,& 11 46 10 42 S,CUTH 9 7 78 2 22 2 22 3 33 WEST 13 6 46 4 31- 8 62 5 38 ,METAfJ/ClTY TYPE GENTRAL 22 16 13 4 18 5 23 6 27 _Vi BURBAN 24 13- 54 10 42 11 46 6 25 INDEPENVENT 20, .11 55 11 55 12 60 13 65 FCRM CF-- GOVERNMEN T- - - MAYOR"COUNCIL 23 17 74 10 43 12 52 9 39 COUNCIL-MANAGER 34 20 59 11 32 13 38 13 38 _c b-Am -I S_ S_ -10- _N_ 3 1 -33 1 33 0 0 TOWN MEETING 5 1 2c 3 6c 1 2u 3 60 REP* TOWN M-EETINC- -1 0. 0 0 1 Lou 0 0 TABLE 33. OF PRE-EXISTING COUNTY CITIZEN BOARDS.OR.COMMISSIONS NO. HAV E X PAN _L_H_A_Vl..__U i 0 cLuLh___E:A_pAAfi.ED_ R E.Rag M-6 BQAB_0_@_@@LILEL III (A) NO.8 A No, -4 A TOTAL, ALL C.GUNTIES 167 1-5 51 62 45- nY_UATlQN GROUP OVER 5CO,600 24 12 50 12 50 250,00-C-500-tOOO 27 12 44 15@ 5,6 I o t o 0 55 31, 56 24 41 '61 3-0 45 3 -1--5-L- 2 5 0 0 Q=_ 5 0-t-0 -0 0 0 0 c 0 0 @1_0_10 0077@_2 tit 000 C C, 0 5 'C Q, 2 Q--'5 2_0 _c 0 0 0 0 0 Q_ UNCE8 " 500 0 G E C _Q 1; A P H I -C @NQATI-EAS I 4C 16 40 -_24 60 NCST.h LtNTKAL A5 25 6 - 20 44 25 50 25 50 H 50 WEST' 32 Is 59 -13 _L_ E-ETRE STATUS. M .. so 114 @a .51 56 AS _NCN METRO 53 j7 511 26 4S,,_ @_Wllh._WLADmINISTRATOR 53 29 55 2A 45 L@ilTb_ ADMIN-ISTRATOR.- 66 29 A If, 37 56- .UNKNCWN 4e 27 56 21 44 TABLE 34. CREATION OF COUNTY-CITIZEN ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD NO. OF HAVE CRE- HAVE N01 ATEU (;IIZN CREATkU REPORTING ENVtR 80 cl7zh so (A) NO,B A A NO. 2 A TOTALP ALL COUNTIES 165 59 36 IL06 64 KFULATION GROUP .OVER 500POOO 23 9 39 14 61 27 11 41 16 59 @l 0 0 t-Q-Qk 2 5 Q_2 0 C 0 54 22 41 32 5'9 501-000-100t.-000 61 17 26 44 72 -25-Looo- 500,000 0 a 0 0 0 -Lutooo- 25toco 0 .0 0 0 0 5tooc-. 10,1000 0 0 0 0 c 2,500- 59000 0 a. c G. UNCER 2#500 0 c 0 0 0 ;GEO kEGION RAPH NORTHEAST 39 14 36. 25 64 .NORTH CENTRAL 42 15 36 27- 64 5 a 0 r2 16 31-3 L 6S WEST 32, 14 44 18 56 @METRC STATUS- METRG 113 40 35 73 65 NEN METRO 52 19 37 33 63 FCRM CF GOVERNMENT WITHOUT ADMINtSTRATOR 51 16 31- 3'5 69 WITH ADMINISTRATOR 64 26 41 38 59 UNKI%CWN 50 17 -34 33 66 TABLE 35@ COMMISSIONS PAkDEl)'*,a'y ORTY'T6 INCLUDE ENVIRONMEN7 "PAVE EXPAND'.% LO CITIZLN . PARK A iv 0 HJSTO@IC COMFUNITY . -SERVATN. CEVELGPMI* 1; GA k-U S R L C Rc".,A I 10 1%, F LANN I NG P Rk %T OTHER i d NG. x e NC. X d. NC. 14 b NO. 8, ITOT A L t ALL LCUNT I ES 85 26 4Z T2, 13 5 19- 22 '.22 26 21 25- POPUL AT IGN Gki-JUP GIVEA'll 50010QU 12 6 50 10 83-, 2 17. 2 17 4 33@. 12 1 2 5- 0 83 2 17 2 ,17 2 17 0 J, c z 5 6 f G 0, 31 IZ 3S 87 -9@. Z91 9 29 11, 35 30 li 5 L@ 2-5. 83 6 2U. 9 3 0' 4 13 5utouu, 0 0 c 0', u 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0. c 0 u 0 0 .0 0 L C U 0. @o U 0: .0 .0 0 C. L) U, c !J-l olio. u u 0 0 0 .0 ut4oLi@ 2.1 !@uo c G 0 0 0 U U 0. --..0. .0 G-@CGI.:APHI-L ill-LGION 25 13 4 .25 NL' T hST .2 15 94 2 13 NOR'H4 [email protected] 56' 30 8 :52 @7 28 6 24'. S i:.j U ].@ F. 25 9 .36 19 76 8 32 9 34.., 7 28 w L- s r 1 5 4 21 4 21, 19 9 47 18 9 M E T P o S T Af U S ME I J@c 58 24 41 5 Q 86 @15 26 14 24 16, 48 NLK Mii--: T 1.111") Z7 12 44 2z 81 4 15 6 30 5 19' Fli'l-M LF GOVEJ-'@44MENT W.1flijUT ADMINISTRATORw 2S 11 38 2-4 .83 8 28, 8 28 6 21 W I -F F. ADVI ifil STRATOR 2s 12 1 23 79 4 14 6 21 9 3 1; 0 N K i-W K 27 1 4b 25 93 7 26 8 3U 6 ZZ: 9ZT C: 2c. r. --c rn T- V,Z z rn c r, i-4 0 n C. z N V, c@ "P < -0 --4 --i r,: con C -,k, C.@ C7,@ %1: Ul C.- U.. C, ro c C-1 C-' C.;, 0C. C:: b, -n u- U-1 C C- C C. C-1 C-1 C-- U, 7F - - --q t- 7r fl. C@ C, C,CC- C'@ r- 4C, X@ > C, C7, r, IM 4r_ C, ;c m C'. 22- C' C- C, C, C% C, C@ C: c C; C-c c 0 ncj c z 5:- CA C@ c C- C- C, C, -0 ;a rr, 0, 01 %r, C-1 Ln 1', 0 n G 7 z << M M--4 k f.. 0, vt 2,m -1 uZ, e?@ (A It G@ Lo %.r w J@ C, - r-,, C. C- 0 C, r) Us -j m -4 rn 7- C 03 4@ co CC P, N OD C-1 C) C) 0 0 M a. l- 01 m -4 rT-,' W PC P- Un L" r1i n 41 Ut &,0 -4 C- ln@ n n r-, -i -j 'n I.- fr, rc. r.c Z co N 0, -1 D, 1- 0 c c L,; u., co 1> 41 %x c .4- v L'. N, -4 NJ W W N tk; C. C.,: CL. -i %D0 C C C c V- Q@q W -j 1> CA ;@4 Er C', kP rfi kp K)w N I" C- c 0 0 V-1 C, %0 C, C, ;r Gn Zni 0: ow,m cl@ co -j 0; 40 m %r, cil CL -4 4@ Ln CC 0 0 0 c, c c (T. b. n, m z V rr, rr, C', -4. z 7. 'n txw m W t@ L, Ur K! N U-. Ul cri -4 Lk, a, c 41 C, C, 0 0 c b-- m -4 N n _j 0@ et, f- W. N r,@ mm C) 4, cr d4-1 rr .J101-4- 0 @j cl@ 1%: In r) IC) n 0 V@ TABLE 37. SPECIALIZED COUNTY CITIZEN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 111110 F CllTzEh BID C-I.-U-ZEN -EQ 11-5 P EL-n---h CLI --S-P-E C R F-P 0 R I-MG I At: LZJE U I Al-I ZED TGTAL, ALL C NTIES 27 46 'AiROUP OV ER-5vQ0. 000 4 5 56 250,j..0.G0--50.0#.A0Q 8 73 3 27 7- 5 0 -f-0 @Q@C=A.Q 0 2-H 0 .17 ic 5S, 7 41 25*000- 50-2000 .0 10- q 0.0 0-- 2-59-0-0-0 c c .0 -5 -0 0 C (L CQ-- c c c c A-S-T- 2 14 Il 79 .,ll '13 4 --27- -N-0 R -1 K-- C-E N T-R, A L 56 5 @L T 14 7 5c 7 5 c- B-Fj- R C STAT s MEIRC 40 21 53- 17 43 N N METko 19 e 4 10 53 f-OP-14-GE -QY-ERttKE&l WI-THCUT ADMINISTRATOR .16; 8 5C 6 30 W I T t--ADM -1 N I STRATOR 26 14 54 12 46 UNKNCWN 17 7 41 9 53 TABLE 38. TYPE OF SPECIALIZED COUNTY CITIZEN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONS CITIZEN 80 I s WEC- AIR WA TE A SCLID@ JAL TZED W,ASTE GTHER NO.. it 8 No* A B _Nc. I 1B No x 8 TOTAL* ALL-COUNTIES 35 21 60 14 itO 19 54 6 17 PCIPULATION GROA)P &VER 500,000 4 3 15' 2 50 1. 25 1' 25 0'a c- 5 0 0 V-P-9 0 8 5 63 4 50 4 50 2 25 3 45 1 9 ON 6 5.5 4- 36 7 5@'S' 4 33 @...9 75 2 17 .0 a 0- 0, 259000- 509000 0 .01 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0' c 0 0 25j-.Q00 0 0 CD 5tGGC- 1 00 c 0 1 1.1--..----.,gp 0 - G, C, 0 0- 0 0 0 -.----2,v-5QQ-- 51 1-CO 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNCER.- 2000 0 c -0 0 c 0 0, 0 0 GEGGRAPHIC REGION NCRTHEAST 3 -2 67 2 67 2 67' 2. N.O..RTh CENTRAL, 12 4 33 5- A2 7 58 2 17 -S.-CUTH 11 6 73 5 45 6 :55 1 9 WEST 9 7 78. 2@ 22 4 44 1 11 METRO STATUS. METRO 25 14 .5-6 10 40 12 48 4 16 @GN METRU 10 7 7C 4c 7 70 2 20 FORM CE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT ADMINISTRATOR ic .7 70 6 60 .4 '40 2 20 -W-lTh ADMINISTRATOR 16 11 49 6 36 19 5b 3 19 UNKNCWN 9 3 33 2 22 6 67 1 11 TABLE 39 CITY ENACTED LAND USE CONTROLS Architec- Flood Historical Open Instaltn Dedic of Zng to Pro- No. of tural Ap- Plain Growth Preserva- Marshland Space of Public Land For tect Natrl Respondents pearance. Zoning Limitation tion Controls Zoning Facilities Pub Purpos Resources No. %(A) No. %(A) FA T_ N-o-77-AT _N_677TTA -No _.TTAT_. T37.@@ No. %(A) (A) No. % Total, All Cities 1115 297 27 507 45 @258 23 ?62 23 132 12 531 48 _921 ..-83 519@ 47. 390 35 Population Group Over 500,000 10 3 30 5 50 2 20 8 -80 2 20 6 6o 8 80 4, 4o 2 20 250,000-500,000 18 22 12 67 1 6 9 .50 4 22 7 38 14 78 8- 44 1 6 100,000-250,000 61 15 25 33 54 14 23 3o 49 11 18 23 38 51 83 33 54 17 28 50,000-100,000 142 43 30 61 43 38 27 37 27 16- 11 70 49 127 89 75 53 51 36 25,000- 50,000 282 71 25 131 46 66 23 62 22 30 11 142 50 226 8o 128 45 99 35 10,006- 25,000 602 161 27 265 44 137 23 116 19 69 11 283 -47 495 82 271 45 220 37 Geographic Region Northeast 252 58 23 130 52 74 29 72 29@ 61 @24 119 47 189 75 ioi 4o 91 36 North Central 327 -84 26 163 50 56 17 69 21 36 11 163 50 264 81 162 50 112 34 South 174 46 17 121 44 62 23 61 22 17 6 114 42 232 85 99 36 89 32 West 262 iog 42 93 35 66 25 60- 23 '18 7 135 52 236 90 157 6o 98 37 Metro/City Type Central 195 41 21 89 46 37 19 75 38 23 12 78 40 169 87 84 43 50 26 Suburban 592 206 35 285 48 170 29 114 19 81 14 302 51 481 81 297 50 220 37 Independent 328 -50 15 133 41 51 16 73 22 28 9 151 46 271 83 i@8 42 120 37 Form of Government Mayor-Council' 279 72 26 123 44 65 23 73 26 35 13 141 51 213 76 124 44 99 35 Council-Manager 769 214 28 348 45 180 23 171 22 75 10 36o 47 664 86 366 -48 266 35 Other 67 11 16 36 54 13 19 18 27 22 33 3o 45 44 66 29 43 25 37 TABLE 40 COUNTY-ENACTED LAND USE CONTROLS Architec- Flood Historical Open Instaltn Dedic of Zng to Pro- Number of tural Ap- Plain Growth Preserva- Marshland Space of Public Land For tect Natr) Respondents p onin earance Z * Limitation tion Controls Zoning Facilities Pub Purpos Resources No -%7A-) No. % 'NO --ITAT- Wo 7_77T wo _. 7 TAT WO 77TA) No. %(A) To. -%(A) Total, All COGS 177 19 11 68 38 22 1.2 43 24 21 12 64 36 91 51 52 29 58 33 Population Group Over 500,000 25 4 16 9 36 5 20 6 24 4 16 io 4o 17 68 12 48 11 44 250,000-500,000 27 4 15 13 48 4 15 6 22 2 7 11 41 16 59 10 37 7 26 100,000-250,000 57 6 11 26 46 7 12 19 33 12 21 23. 40 30 53 16 68 18 32 50,000-100,000 68 5 7 20 29 6 9 12 18 3 4 20 29 28 41 14 21 22 32 Geographic Region Northeast 4o 3 8 8 20 4 io 9 23 7 18 8 20 15 38 8 20 4 io North Central 49 3 6 24 49 6 12 10 20 5 10 15 31 22 45 16 33 23 47 South 55 6 it. 16 29 6 11 15 27 4 7 19 35 25 45 11 20 12 22 West 33 7 21 20 61 6 18 9 27 5 15 22 67 29 88 17 52 19 58 Metro Status Metro 119 15 13 53 45 15 13 31 26 16 13 43 36 64 54 37 31 38 32 Non Metro 58 4 7 15 26 7 12 12.21 5 9 21 36 27 47 26 20 35 Form of Government Without Administrator 56 4 7 20 36 4 7 9 16 6 ij 14 25 22 39 15 27 11 20 With Administrator 69 10 14 32 46 14 20 21 30 12 17 36 52 43 62 27 39 33 48 Unknown 52 5 10 16 31 4 8 13 25 3 6 14 27 26 50 10 19 14 27 TABLE 41 OTHER CITY-ENACTED CONTROLS Abandoned Tree Pre- Erosion Grading Restrict Sanitation No. of Vehicle servation Control (Excavatn) Housing Noise Nonreturn (Refuse) Sign Respondents Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance Code Ordinance Bottles Ordinance Ordinance No. %(-F _N_o7T7_ `No_._%_TA7 -No-.-%-(7A- 'No- TMA _N 7- T A --I 7%-FA T_ (A) A FA F No. %TA-F- -N-o Total, All Cities 1] 15 933 84 343 31 181 16 479 43 897 80 392 35 15 1 937 84 938 84 Population Group Over 500,000. 10 9 90 2 20 2 20 5 50 :@]O 100 4 40 0 0 9 90 880. 250,000-500,000, @18 16 89 7 39 0 0 7 39 18 ioo 4 22 0 0 17 94 17 94 100,000-250,000 61 55 90 20 33 12 20 29 48 55 90 25 W 0 0 54 89 53 87' 50-,000-100,000 142 118 83 51 36 29 20 66 46 119 84 56 39 4 3 120' 85 124 87 25,000- 50,000 282 235 83 84 30 51 18 132 4-7 232 82 95 34 4 1 231 82 .231 82 10,000-25POOO 602 500 83 179 87 14 240 35 463 77 208 35 7 1 .5o6 84 '505 Geographic Region Northeast 252 191 76 88 35 54 21 115 46 192 76 82 33 2 -1- 187 74 217 86 North Central 327 281 86 108 33 36 11 132 4o 261 8o 115 35 5 2 283 87 279 85' South 274 238 87 55 20 37 14 71 26 241 89 56 35 1 0 255 93 217 79 West 262 223- 85 92 35 54 21 161 61 201 77* 99 3 8 7 3 212 81 225 86 Metro/City Type Central 195 174 89 63 -32 32 16 79 41 96. 78 40 1 1 -171 88 - 164 84- Suburban 592 489 83 199 34 125 21 312 '53 441 74 M 34 11 2 .475 80'- 51,4 87 Independent 328 270 812 81 25 24 7 88 27 269 82 92 28 3 1, 291 89 260 79' Form of Government Mayor-Council 279 229- .82 86 31 45 16 119 43 242 87 100 36 3 1 231 83 '227 81 Council-Manage.r 769 657 85 238 31 1,25 16 332 43 604 79 272 35 112 2 656 85 654 85 Other 6.7 47 70 19 28 11 16 28 42 51 76 20 30 0 0 50 75 57. 85 TABLE 42 OTHER COUNTY-ENACTED CONTROLS Abandoned Tree Pre- Erosion Grading Restrict Sanitation No. of Vehicle servation Control (Excavatn) Housing Noise Nonreturn (Refuse) Sign Respondents Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance Code Ordinance Bottles Ordinance Ordinance (A) No. % A No. % A No. % A No. % A No. % A No. % A No. %.A No. % A No. % A (A) Total, All COGS 177 58 27 17 10 41 23 42 24 65 37 14 8 2 1 86 49 55 31 Population Group Over 500,000 25 9 36 6 24 8 32 13 52 11 44 8 32 1 4 15 6o 12 48 250,000-500,000 27 8 30 3 11 11 41 7 26 12 44 3 11 0 0 18 67 12 44 100,000-250,000 57 22 39 5 9 14 25 13 23 22 39 3 5 1 2 27 47 15 @6 50,000-100,000 68 19 28 3 4 8 12 9 13 20 29 0 0 0 0 26 38 16 24 Geographic Region Northeast 40 7 18 1 3 9 23 4 lo 5 13 0 0 0 0 8 20 7 18 North Central 49 12 25 3 6 7 14 5 10 16 33 4 8 0 0 27 55 11 22 South 55- 19 35 9 16 13 24 16 29 25 45 6 11 1 2 30 55 15 27 West 33 20 61 4 12 12 .36 17 52 19 58 4 12 1 3 21 64 22 67 W tj Metro'Status Metro 119 40 34 15 13 33 28 35 29 51 43 14 12 2 2 69 58 43 36 Non Metro 58 18 31 2- 3 8 14 7 12 14 24 o 0 0 0 17 29 12 21 Form of Government Without Administrator 56 17 136 2 4 10 18 10 18 13 23 4 1 2 20. 36 15 27' With Administrator 69 3o 43 12 17 23 33 24 -35 33 48 9 13 1 1 43 62 31 45 Unknown 52 1.1 21 3- 6 8 15 8 15 19 37 1 2 0 0 2-3 44 9 17 TABLE 43. ENVIRONMENTAL SECTION IN CITY MASTER PLAN No @ QF M MR__ELAh__A_AS_lf PLAN lNCLLDf_S_E_N_.Q,OE_S_hLT UNDER CON REPORTING VIR SECTION INCLUUE SEC SIDERATICN A NE. % A TOTAU ALL CITIES 962 29L4 ?7 401 42, 297 3L- PCFULATj_QN_GRQ;JP. CVEF 5OQtO0O 8 4 50 3 36 1 13 @01000-500_tOOO 17 5 29 7 41 5 29 lA_Qr_Q_Q0__45Q".OO 59 16 27 21 36 22 37 124 -37 30 41 33 46 37 0- 5croco 246 58 24 103 42 85 35 _J919-0.0- 251-000 506 144 28 226 44 138 27 c 0 0 0 21 0 51 Q_Q_Q 0 0 0 a .0 u 0 UN0i_R!e_"2"_v'_5 .0. 0 c 0 0 '0 0 GECG-RAr,PHIC R EGION NOATHEAST 2 0-a- E 3 0 73 _3 NCRTH CENTRAL 2E6 57 2 C .162 57 6-7 ?3- SOUTH 229 21 Lia 52 63 28 WEST 23S 16 32 48 2C 115 48 METRO/CITY TYPE CENTRAL 174 41 24 .69 -40 64 37 SU URRAN 51L 157 31 190 37 164 32 INOEPENDE14T 277 66 24 142 51 69 25 FCOM CF GOVERNMENT MAVOIR-;COUNCIL -424 IC 31 @98 44 56 25 CCUNCIL-MANAGER 684 115 26 286 42 223 33 Cumi -IS-SION 27 6 30 10' 37 9 33 TCWN MEETING is 8 ft2 6 32 5 26 REP* TOWN MEETING a 3 38 1 _A3 4 50 TABLE 44. ENVIRONMENTAL SECTION IN COUNTY PLAK OF MASTER P-LAN KASIE" R E P -T-I-C.hL-l KLU 0 E SEC SIDERATIEN (A) C X A 2 4 -4-3- ai-----56--43-. -ULMON GRQ,UP -t)VER 5QOtOOO . 21 4 19 4 19 13 --2 5.0 f-0 0 @0@5-QQI' QkQ- 20 6 30 7 3'5 7 315' 0 0. [email protected]=2-5 Q0 0 14 @33 11 26 0 Q r-o. 0 0 '7 @6 .7 1-5-Z-1 .0 0 - () . 0 0 0----------- c @Q 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 1-450,0- 0 0 UNDEV2* .0 0 o 33 10 3Q 10- 13 3 9- NORTHEAST _N_Q'UF CENTRAL 33 6- le 1L 3@3 16 48 Lsuu-T H - 34 5 15 -I-6-k7 13 -3@ 3.0 10 33. 6 2, 14 7 METRO STATUS 40 44 METRG, 90 19 21. 3L 34 16 40 NQN METRO 40 12 30 12 -F-CBM CE GOV-E-RAMENT WITHCUT ADMINISTRATOR 45 10 22- 23 51 12 27 WITH ADMINISTRATOR- .52 151. 1 Ci 27 52 -UNKNCWN 33 6 It 10 30 17 52 TABLE 45 CITY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS Number Number ___Reporting Responding Standards Air Noise Sewer ge Water Aj- No. %(A) No. %(A No. %(A) No. 2.: (A) No. %(A) Total, All Cities 1115 691 62 2A 18 196 18 596 53 474 43 Population Group Over 500,000 10 10 ]Do 5 50 4 4o 6 60 5 50 250,000-500,000 18 15 83 10 56 3 17 13 72 11 61 100,000-2509-000 61 44 72 23 38 13 21 36 59 32 52 50,000-100,000 142- 97 68 35 25 33 23 8o 56 66 46 25,000" 50,000 282 179 63 59 21 56 20 146 52 115 41 10,000- 25,000 602 346 57 72 12 87 14 315 52 245 41 Geographic Region Northeast 252 146 58 43 17 38 15 124 49 85 34 6 North Central 327 204 62 84 26 55 17 171 52 146 45 South 274 182 66 50 18 43 16 168 61 142 52 West @262 159 61 27 10 60 23 133 51 101 39 Metro/CitY Type Central -195 151 77 61 31___ 42 22 129 66 112 57 Suburban 592 335 57 105 18 H] 19 270 46 211 36 Independent 328 205 .63 38 12 43 13 197 60 151 46 Form of Government Mayor-Council 279 160 57 62 22 43 15 138 49 110 39 Council-Manager 769 493 64' 134 17 143 19 423 55 338 44 Other 67 38 57 12 10 15 35 52 26 39 TABLE 46 COUNTY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTA L QUALITY STANDARDS Number Number Reporting Responding. Standards Air Noise Sewerage Water (A) No. %(A) N o. % TA) No. %(A) No. *(A) Total, All Counties 177 50 54 31 10 6 73 41 55 .31 Population Group Over 500,000 25 18 72 17 68 4 16 14 56 44 250,000-500,000. 27 17 63 10 37 3 11 12 44 13 48 100,000-250,000 57 31 54 18 32 2 4 26 46 18 32 50,000-100,000 68 23 34 9 13 1 1 21 31 .13 19 Geographic Region .Northeast 4o 1-1 28 5 13 1 3 11 28 7 18 North Central 49 25 51 ]1 22 1 2 20 .41 15 31 South 55 28 51 15 27 4 7 22 40 17 31 West 33 25 76 23 70 4 12 20 61 16 48 Metro Status Metro 119- 67 56 44@' 37- 9 8 52 44 .41 34 Non Metro 58, 22 38 10 17 .1 2 21 36 14 24 Form of Government Without Administrator 56 .22 39 10 18 2 4- 16 29 11 20 With Administrator 69 47 68 37 54 12 40 58 32 46 Unknown 52 20 38 7 13 .0 0 17 33 .-12. 23 TABLE 47 ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS REGULARLY MONITORED BY CITY AIR NOISE SEWERAGE WATER Adopting Monitoring Adopting Monitoring. Adopting Monito@_ing Adopting Monitoring Standards Standards 'Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards, No. (A) No. %(A) No. (A) No. %(A) No. (A) No. %(A) No. (A) No. %(A) Total, All Cities 204 176 .86 196 76 39, 596 517 87 474 443 93 Population Group Over 500,000 5 6 120 .4 3 75 6 5 83 5 6 120 250,060-500,000 10 11 110 3 4 133 13 11 85 1.1 11 ]Do 1100,000-250,000 23 25 109 13 6 46 36 34 94 32 28 88 50,000-100,000 35 35 100@ 33 18 54 80 75 94 66 65 98 25,000- 50,000 59 41- 69 56 13 23 146 126 86 1.15 109 95 101,000- 25,000 72 58, _81 @87 32 37 315 266 84 245 224 91 Geographic Region Northeast 43 36: 84 38 16 42 124 107 -86 .85 77 91 North Central 84 71 85 55 21 38 171 W 82 146 131 90 South 50 43 '86, 15 35 168 159 95 142 1 4o 99 West 27 26 96 -@_61Q_ .24 40 133 110 83 101 95. 94 Metro/City Type Central 61 65. 42 19,' 45 129 119 92 112 108 96 Suburban- 1,05 77 73 111 40 36 27Q 226 84 211 190 90 Independent 38 34 8-9 43 17 40, .197 1-72 87 151 145 96 Form of Government Mayor-Council 62 49 .79 43 20 47 138 -115 03 110 -99 90 Council-Manager 134 117 87 143 54 38 423 373 68 338 323 96 Other 8 10 1-25 10' 2 20 35 29 83 26 2.1 81 TABLE, 48 ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS REGULARLY MONITORED BY COUNTY AIR NOISE SEWERAGE WATER Adopting Mopitoring Adopting Monitoring Adopting Monitoring Adoptin� Monitoring Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards: Standards Standards (A) No. T No. AFNo. %(A) R;-.---TTF No@ %(A) %(A)@ No. (A 'No. %(A) Total, All Countles 54 57 106, 10 5 50 73 6S 86 55 100 Population Group Over 500,000 17 17 100 4 2 50 14 15 167, 11, 13 1-18 250,000-500,000 10 10 100 3 1 33 12 9 75 13 12 92' 100000-250,000 18 20 111 2 1 50 26 24 92 18 :19 106 502000-100,000 9 10 111 1 ]Do 21 15- 71- 13 1-1 85 Geographi,c Region Northeast, 5 5 100 1. 0 0 .11 9 82 7 8 114 North Central 11 12-- 109 1 1 ]Do 20 161 8o, 15 12 80 co South 15 16, 107 4 1 25 22 19 17 16 94 West 23 24 @104 4. -3 35 20 95 -16 19 119 Metro-Status Metro 44 46 105 4 44 52 47 90 .41, 44 -107 .Non Metro 10 110 1 ]Do 21 16 76 14 11 79 Form of Government Without Admin Iistrator AO- 11 110 1 @50 16 14 88 1"1 11 100 With Administrator 37 40 log 8 4 @50 40 34 .85 32 32 100 Unknown. .7 A .86 0 0 0 17 15 88 12 12 100 TABLE 49. CITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS. NO. OF ON PUBLIC ON PUeLIC ON PRIVATE & -P-A.I. Y-A TE PROJECTS P R,C-.JECT S NCKE -A-F--p OR T I N G PkOJLCTS CNLY ChLY ADOPTE 0 (A) NO. A, KG. I A, N C@. @A N 0 . Z A TOTALy ALL CITIES 1038 20 20 88 a 20 2 723 70- PCPULATION GROUP [email protected]@900 10 1 10, 3 3C 0 0 6 60 2.5-op-CC-0-5.009000 18 6 33 1 6 0 0 11 61 56 14 24 2 3 1 -.2 41 71 5 10 0 f 0 0 0 139 46 33 8 6.. 1 1 84 60 251000- 509000 26A 52 20- 20 8- 6 2 166 70; Lotcuo- 25,000' 549 ES 16 54 10. - 12 395 .72@ 59COO- lOtOOO .0 a 0 0 0 0 0 2,500- 59OGO 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 ANCER 2*50,0 0 c 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0- ..GECGRAPHIC REGION -NL8Tl-EAST 223 27 12 6 3 7 183 82 N0J;Th CENTRAL. 3C6 15 5 30 10- 5-,, 256 @84 -SLU FH 256 14 5 30 12 3' 1 209 82 WEST 253 151 60 22 9 5 2 75 30' METRO/CITY TYPE c LN'r F AL -190- 36 19 1.2 6 1 1 @141 74 SUBURBAN 546, 148 27 38 .7 1,4-, 3 3 4 6:'- 63, - INUEPENDENT 3C2 23 8 38: 13 5 2 78, FCRM CF GGVERNMENT MAYIOF-@CUUNCIL 250 23 S 22 9 5 2 200 80 COUNC IL-MANAGER :114 2 6'0 8' L4 2 465 66 COPMISSION 2.8 4 1.4 6 21 1 4 17 61 TCWlj MEETING 20 5 25 0 0 0 0 15 75 REP. TUWN MEETING 7 1. 14 c 0 0 0 6 86 TABLE 50. COUNTY REQUIREMIENTS.FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 114PACT STATEMENTS NO OF ON PUBLIC ON PUBLIC QN PIRIVATf & PRIVATE PROJEC7S PJRGJECTS NONE REPORTING PROJECTS CNL@ C@LY @@AQGPTEQ (A) NO. X A NQ* X A NC.,, X' A,- h 0 -A ALL COUNTIES 161 36 22 '19 12 2 1 -104' 65. rION GROV -OVER 5009000 - ?4 7 29. 3 13 2 8,: 12 50 2 5 go 000 25 5 - @20 13 52 0 7 28 0 0 53 13 25 7 '13 V 31 62 502.000-1009000 59 9. 15 4 7 0 10 46 78 25 000- 509000 -0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0.. a 109000- 2.59000 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 a 0 5. 0 oow@, _-fov 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 500- - 59 000 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 UNGER 29 500 0 a 0 -0 0 0. 0 0 0 GEr,GRP IUN NORTbEAST - - I .. . . : 16,' 4 11 5 14 0 0 27 .75 NORTI- CENTRAL' 44 5 11 a @18 0 31' 70- SOUTH 44 6 '12 4 8 38 78 WE5T .32 21 66 2 .6 3 8 25 METRC STATUS METRO 109 25 23 15 14 2 2 67 61 NCN METRO ...52 11., 21 4 8 0 0 37 71 F FCRM CF'GOVERNM WIT14OUT AOMINIATRATOR 49 5 10 '6 12 0 0 38 78, WITH ADMINISTRA 66 23 35 8 12 2 3 33 50 UhKh.cwt% -.TOR A6 8 17 5 i'l 0 0 33 72 _T t V-..- -.4 I.-Omm 'v-,(^72rn 'c a rT.,C.-, rn C r.) u c- C, c m c n, 4. 0 0 0 0 -.0 r,@ rn -r =,r. 7L c C c, c ir.'o ". 1. -ti f"; c CQ C- c c C-I'Vi --t C@ u U@ r@ n r-; c C: r--c c cc Z C.--, a@ C C,.' rr... :1 -14 en kr V OLOC)c "I C-1 t, 07- M. 0 c c C, C, C C- 0 C, -i --i c 0 0 C-4 C- r_ 40 c X rr c 0 C, cc cl. c "C m I . z Coll 7 to rr M r- rr, P- Ln 0 m j 0 0 a c C, A, aj %.P -4 -1 tp Z X z C) M In to I.- b@ rQ w r,, rn N Ir, 0, -j N w %0 Nn 0 0 ej 01 a- w in n 0 "n c-, C', m m Lw Cl@ 0 e-, w V. C) 0 C) rn C., rr IT 7. I.- C,- N z, v 4@ V m f,.@ cn 0. C C lc@ V %n @O (z N tv N; M W M C) C,) N @j %n %r. b. 0 C, 01 41 %r n ell CD: 3c ull lj- 411 Ol 0: c m C) c a, a- a, 0-1 .&I -Z -4 a 0, IX 3C C C7, C #A i a, C C- 1.4 N, N (,j N Lk: P- N r.. 41 k, NJ N v on N C) 0 c -Z %n N co v p- 41 a@ C 1 "0 rr. G c %T .4 C, C-1 In til t- In cr; n ff- n C) tw CL) 10 KI C) 4"@ 0) n Ol e,@, C3 -J kri ft, 0' C) 0 a V W .9@ N.) C'I L" 3: 0 c x x r-: It rrt Z: V, 7 z S, c r- cl, 7 w (-I TV. -4 rr r-.M C7, C., 7@ P- tv %.r. c un < -a -1 -,: 7, --4 X. V: C 7- 2, C', C, N, V. C- Ult C, C,- C- r@-C 7- -jr@ C-) -i -V M rl C-j. r-. C. _r, -n.- 77' U, C C-- C-, C) C, f-, b@ -1; .C C, c Cl (- C n ul --i 1> K; C. C C- C, C-- C@ C - rT. V. @ I I c C 7 -H e-@ ,;T Nj U; > < c; X rl w C %.7 C C) C C,; C-. C- C, n 0 c C, C-1 C@ C, C) C, C, C, 0 c C) 0 r"m cl, C, 0 r: X rr > rr. kr. c (jj w N; C, C-, C C, e,) w K) Z7 ;a n 0 n C, Cl n c-, cn C-) C. cr, 0 kc, --j N. f) 0 0 C- C; C, C) LL UP C, 0 -t- > -Z I- 0 M r r 0 w rm N, %P I-- n r_ C3 n 41 Lr,N ol I> m ?w r- w W IN P. L." Cl, cn to 0, m -.4 w b- C, 9-- n C'@ V) -i N rn b. f- C- M -0 Nj ro ui 0 0 C 0 C C C 41 0 w iw V., 4, ru W -4 0 (r. 41 0 w to-, 0, c 0 C, C@ cc V, w %.n C. 0, N) W N C: C- o C, C, L,: w tu 41 z r 0 &--@ " M N w r%j r) > w 4@ 00 -1 @r tx N C.) 0 c 0 0 u@ tx U, w Z Ol M 0 M, .7. m < r > a@. C, --I "D m Lr; rr Cc 1.- %0 C, %0 %0 c 0 c c C: C, c vi -i C ol I. X, In r-j e) n n t-, n to tw Ks #4@ rT-. X r1i N N r-j I-IN) I.- @j -i kn r_InIC) r) qu)jtn to -j j.- EtT -4 c) C-1 3r C'%- n m x Ln @p 7. rr c rl ("I cl ('T: rimrl. 1> x 7 a rr --i rr m r-% m r, z c %r < m -4 2, x c -< x cm 7, x 0 c -M -Z Jr. r- K., %x c Ln Co 0 c n- c 1> 7 C) rr. n -4 -4 -4 -4 -z %m a 0 c C 0 :4 Ln rt, >b. 0 rr. 10 0 0 c C, 0 0 v --i C'; rr V1, r- r) b-4 n 1:1, T 0 0 0 7 C c 0 6- t. 2: rr P- I C -4 rr, I loo r- z -4 C. Z a C Z --4 V. 16 Z r" i@ 0 k-Nuic"Co :c Z. Znm X :0 oLnCulocccon n n.,. rm rr. ocoacac C --4 0 c C." in 0 n 0 a "4 X c cococco V rol -4 0- w rr -9 r* -j J, kA 17, n-. . .,m cr n co -j a 0 0: ul -j -.1 4, Ui z x -4 X1. 0 U." W V- 4s %r. Vi r- 0 W 6- ma N AN; z N Vl C-) n n n 46n co cr, rr :0 0 2.1 rn 2c 0.- 1.- 0-. W tv 4, co -4 C) "P o' 0@ %n C@ f%l -;l w tr w U- w 41 ul V CD N: (n -1 %0 (71 a) th C) 0 n rr, n. %Y! n rr U" Lu %C, 1.- 0 c w tA! C C) C CL -4 Ki N J= 11 m -4 UJ a, ul c c C) V N tll: K; &N %P w 'b. M Un Lo %6 C) C C M L" I-- cr N U., Un N U- %ji Vi a. U) N &S .01 L- X@ a. -4 N 41 C) 0 ol 0 Co 4- W C) 0 Nj -r, tr In X 41 ol -j OD N m m w 0 0 0 1- w Cf, cr, w Cl) rri U) N C 0 co -;s m 1> VVT c x 21 Ir-, rr V 7 2. m c I'll rn rl) rl k, < 'r, --q c c c c iol 7 r, -r C'. C, C, C; 0 I-1z a c Fn r- v. c C, C- c- C, C, C@ kx@ z -11 1 -1- rl Ci C, 0 C-, C. C- 0c- > C-- 7-, 1C, c r- :r > XD < M V. 7, C, U: C C, C, CD CC) n r, c c C, C@ C, c C- c r) C- C,, C-1 0 C, c z CD c 0 C) C.; 0 c C> > rr 1C) ;k@ :A > -4 M rn r' S@ r kri M U) Lo 1- ky@ 4@-- W TP C, 0 C, C n W C N) r%; -j C) Lc, t-, rl@ c-, C--@ n tx@ -3 C, f@. f rn rr kn rn C; C- 4. _e %m s-:' %.rl ol w cr -P, ol w -7 'n cr, a, all 0: 0- c c C C; el- c m-.4 JI r.. M. rTl w PC K) (r, C Cl C C n K) 0, V. %.r N U.; W LQ U U: U 1 co C-1 Cr, I-- I.- C) C@ c cl, ol k" Cl Ili N@ to 'It. T .9- kA 41 %0 *W 14.1 Ol 41 0 C,- 0 c c-, 4- 0, rr 41 ol IN tn L" W, 0% 4@ C C) 0 0 1-- 0 N, -4 C) @.Cr (A Z z M c r%) 0 In 0 rr; Cl L-1 M > W Z:a M m 0 C 0 ZI P,. lr%) !%A C3 kn < a -4 X X c -C X 0 OD 2 CA c = m In O!N V a j-.n!O a 0 MIC rn,= -4 C", M ila;v @C),O!n.c,c) TD. 6" 41 In Im > lw Ml v :0 C!C.):n ic)!O la L" -4 C', ifr (A en iZ C% lp. =I N 140Z ic: 0 C) o b. X: rr C n :0 M. i(r. P-41 C). --4 X C C) M z -4 C% %P tv %A P-4 Z 0! X 2 z elim -4 0,0 M, X O!Ln @cc 0 a C) n m n 170 %* Iml :- @ 4 OM 0- f- z T r C) la;c 0,0 io;o 0 '0 @-4 m 2 0 0,00 X m ic), 0 0 0 M 0 m CA m ;o z rr 0 IM! * ; -4 @ -@! C) N Lb) J@l ol Ln M -J:cy, -@s Lbs La m- 0% 6- CD LA n 0 LIM 4) 1 cr"n cc a z X X X Ln J% 4%1. la 411, 41% .8% &1. C% ie. I LQ N Un n J, C3 in LML CD.N X M IV m IN N fu I- > je, I-, uj th" co m 0, A n 'o =..M C) C) co cm w In -4 40 ;0:> C! %A IN N@ 4@ 0-4 N N v N N.,C) J- 6- la, Irr., ,i 0 0 C) I- T0, 00 Lb -4 il..4 0 0) -j co ftj co -4 CD lco CO co -J@CL cr -j 0% 13@ CD to -J; C, L4 C3 IC!, ir, oN IN 9VT -4n n mn 0, m rn w (A 2 2 r" c C) 'cc) 0 rr- 0 n Ln > m z w rm -.4 rn o cm o 2 N, Cit." <.-a -4 X C: -< :t (A C: :0 = n I C: N VIC Lnia 0:0 r" C 3b .7 x 7 Cn fn@w -4 cn --4 -4 " -4 m rn I" @. 0 0 1@ @o r, r, P-10 w m V w m 1% T IT Ir b. (Ln aC> Z3!0 0 C5 b@ -4 MCA 1. 1.," m > Z. cl . MD 0 6 0 0 0 0:0 %A-4 0 m (A f- 0 z -- F- o. m lb, = 'Wobcoal op- lb, xlrn.- 1 00 0 -4 mv) 0 1 1 1 Ill.? .TOO r, z c x C 0 m d< 2 .4 m L" Lr. z r 2 Z Zom -4 -4 m CM0100000 C) 0 rr. Cl) U P- :'D .4 p rn rlb 11 " 14 0 -0 ;v $-* m Cl r- 2 V 0 000000 0 -4 rn m 60.00000 ;0 fr. (A C) x > X "0 4c 0 X* IC3 r" rn N c m n A. NJ w 4, A% j- OJ- W a X 0 kn 004. 0% w CD Ok ooowmNNWW w z CD (A . > C rr.;C. LA c 6 X!P. C: (n N K) in N LP N K) Lo 0- 't f- 2> rm I- 01- N w kn CD 0 Ul 0- L" N @J- tA 0 z V rn cl (Alz m 0% .in kn&LP Ls & @k ma Lnb, %A ol & Lrl tA ell in 0 U% w o N 4, -j an ol %0 n a ftj %0 w -j .7p r. @OnIC", C (nic) M X 2! ;0 0, -j . P@. c N ftj w 0- 41, 0 0 7 = m c) rn LA Ln w w A- N K) Lo@ 414. w CA C3 n n h- C3 tp -j K) co 0 -4 4% C5 n 40 N 4@ w 0 0 w N 41 N P- N N@N co -i!rn rn 0.- W OD 0- @4 v 0 m 41- A, N N 41 4- tv J, w 0, 41, O@rl;a C C) v 0, W -4 La N ol 0 C 0' %0 4- W -4 P@ CD z lcl@- op- A, w I.- N m'w %0 a 40 a almCDrA P- a 0 rn 0:010 U" -ftj 0-01, -4,0 u 0 0 a b-1-j!o, OD LVT r% m M=Iocfn, z I.- r-o %P -C -0 -4 w 'm in C03 N L" 0 rr C: V- m rl r. I- > cc: m M "a ca) .4 Z, > 00 C: 000000 T CA :0 L" Ln n Ln L" P.; X. Ln 0 ton Lh w X :X. z CD k" Cb In Ln C% 0 m m 0 C3 co P- X rn cc In W .4 %D tn n n 0 0 0 -j 00 N CD OD K) uj & N N LA 0 %0 0 C@ 0 %0 Co -4 in -j C, co -j co %0 ol %A C, %n CD co-N 10 o c Ll 2 m m m 0 rr 'Cl CIO .0 iuN V -4 N Illn io l'u" to a &I IC 2, M 0 -T %1"m C," m M. "Ic a lop a c @0:0 -4 -4 n 1@- x C3 0 OC30 ll-', > x* V. I I I 1A CIO I- th 7 0 C, X > 4<C IN Lm a 0 70 0;0 0 0 n Ino nloca 00000010 v -4 4 rn 0 OX> ;r -0 ic V C m rn co -4 0 c m Ljj :0 cl CUP %0 m .4 rN Ut 0 0 0 0 a 0 4, ca oo@ P. c rl: Ic- CA W.6 4m 0 %A z m ca < Ln w a., %A cl LO P. 0 C, a 0'0 IMP .91 IM in C) Cl 0 Z =Ao 6@ 4r 40 1- w 10 f" rr, LA 1-4 Uj W (A w ol ?v OD -4 -J %0 114 ll@n a Ic.-A C3 n 0 0 0 m a-w co N LW coo 0 0 414%wlls kA w m 7 n C3 0 w co w v C w W, 4% 4A C3 :0, w Ol a cu, a 0 0 %A 6 TVT In -0 ;0 -4 :m en m @M- N Ln 0 0 m r) z m -i E Ic !0 cl > m Lr. < -c -M M: 4A C i@b @-M:cl 0 u", 0.%.n a o 6 Z Ir @-7 @O M;O ",C -4 -4 M (A rr; (Is. ;rn "a la to 'a ; ml 0 2 r 0 6 C@o C) I* x M b.4 11 CIO CI it I @l It Co. r- z -.4 0 X@c 0 m 0 %A I L" z r M z z (n;m -4 23 0; V. DAnc) ja 0 IC 0 a M Im m 0:0 m r a) 0,10MOO .-I M@ 0 0 0 I." X lz z 2 rn fr. V 0 IN, a -j N, w Ul W 11M tn N b" w ru w rl) 4. CD 4- %.n it- 2,0 13: @X 0 m lip 0 a C@ 40 40 n N 4m6j L" %A lun a n cl Ln Ok kA N@ C) IA- %b --I as Ac CAI n 0 W .9- N N %m N aalpWN-P wow w 3" lz X C; 3t in kn w %P .4 U) N LO -j w w 01 kn 0 00 0 C) N -1 -%1 -%a N ;w Ln n a' 10 %D %0 11.0 Illn %0 0%0%0 %0 %b to %0 %0 %0 CD -4 Im. 0 In In 0 et. Ok Ol 0% 0 49% 0 a C) ()I,,q, A- -4 4- m z m 1.6 fr, M. a c -4 0 lip 4z ;;;Cl 010 Olb-@N N W N N 0 0 N N Q 0, I= OST m m m jN 0 %p -4 %A OlLn p-jCi 0 rn b. "P& @* ?a im Mr io.c,.o io 0 b- rn Lm > 0 0 CIO a b. C2 io:;%.n Wc C) 9. 2 0 om cl, 0 a 0 0 10 > --A @La Ca 0 C) ;50 > m C) X m rn 40 X .t. V Lo 4% .9, u) Ln K3 ha > w r- 40 (n m C3 m (A. C). -4 6- Ki N %p kn 4, 1.- n o n e-s m) -.j 0 N CD k N w 0, 0 ho w n in c., Fn w Nn im 4- W 6) m %6 P- -4 0 -J, 01 0 %0 K) a n (0), rn %0 co C: M CIO -.0 m co 16 @j 41 CP 0 ;u m m ol 0 C) cc mix Ln N & o o a@ cl I I @ C) io Ic) 7- La h gn p PE W TST n c*f rr. X10 2! 2 M c jo C3 fri -4 lrrs:o OM a z !Cj%r. oc a -4 m 0 a 0 m 7 C= I I J%A!" N c Pl L" C %r., n.0 rr "a -Z c: x ow Z m ., I 1 10 . :x -Z 0 rr. C --4 C3 --t 1--4 --4 x w ri ,;a "M X i =,,:r b. W@Lnlo;a C C! o Z. --4 M Ln 'M rn 1b. n m CIO, :b a %A --4 > c,MV, r- n ZM r, In itw :r. Nin 010 0 oic) n 0 0-4 2h, T.Im - 1 0 0 c M! *011 111 OiM 00 4- z -4)c x c D rr Ln i "INlLn z r, @@z b.Z< 2 01 V, ,C;Lrejo 0 Z Z n rr, :0 ;o CAP 0'" O'jc, 0 C a 0 n m M b- 20. M m :C 0 a .0 c.. CIO --I m X n n n a 8-4 = m 0 0 0 0 0 C c rh z z c) > 71 0 -j 41, fl) 0 J. V. Ili 0 4@ U) 0 a 0 n 0 0.- 0 101C, co %n -4 -4'> C C) 70 4A z 6 C- I @-. C7 -A @6 -j tin 4% -1 k) hi to N t- N N tki N KI w W LU ir- :0 4@ Cc %-n N %0. N 01 N @j W b. sp- N 41.'o- rr. iz -4 P.- P- N @a -4ic w rn1w.b" %b co -4 CD W r-j %." %b coo 01 co 6-4 --Icn M Ln 0 0 C U) a r- %0 C 0 Qc CD 0 40 N 31. 1 n " 1 Ln olJ.&, Cc 0% 4@ 01 0 0 0 unl.9-11o, ION 16" bb 017 C OD 0 TABLE. 62. COUNTY.PENALTY STRUCTURE FOR DISCHARGINd POLLUTANTS' NQ* OF MUNI Cl PALTY, 10,U"'ICIPAL,, PLNALT*-* 'UOES I\ r, T -_UNIJER CQN- REPORTING -STRUCTURE HA-Vt PNL7*-- SIbERATILN (A) NO. -4 -A Nb. 4 A NC. 3 A TOTALt ALL COUNTIES 159- 5 221.1 119 7.5 -5 3 POPULATIOWGROUP -OVER 5001000 24 11 46 12 50 4 _9@91_000-5001 000 24 5 21 19 79 0 0 190t QQP.n2_@9,1 000 52 12 23 39 74 2 4 -lootooo 58 7 '12 49 -84 2 3 25900'0- 509000 0 a G 0 a 0 0 L Q,t.90 C@- .2_5&O.0 a 0-1 0 0 0 0 0 Ln 50000- 109000 0 0. a 0, 0 0 w 'a @o 5-tooo 0 0 .0 61 0 UNDER 2000 0 c a -0 G-. 0 0 76 EGGRAPHIC-REGION NORTHEAST 35 4 If 29 83 2 6 NCRTH CENTRAL' 45 7 16- 37 82 1 2 --so-VIll , -- 49 11 U 36 73 2 4 WEST 30 A 43 17 57 0 0- METRC STATUS METRO 107 28 26 75 70 @4 4 NCN ME-TRO' 52 7. ..13 44 85- 1- 2 FCRM CF GOVERNMENT 8'6 WITHOUT ADMINISTRATOR 5 1 "12. 44 2 WITH -ADMINISTRATOR 6 6 20 2C 46 70 0 0 u @N 42 9 21 2'9 6S 4 10 TABLE 63. CITY INITIATED-MAJOR ENV I RO.NMENTAL. LEGAL SUITSAN:LAST TWO YEARS.. -VE--NOT -NO.- OF HAVE IN I I I HA LEGAL' INITIATEC REPORT Sul 75' LEGAL- SUITS (A) NO. A h C. I--- A- T,GTAL, ALL CITIES 103 IC2 10 -971 9c, .,POPULATION: CROUP -OVER 5OOtOOO 10 L 10 9 9c. 250tOOC-5009000 18 3 1-7 15- 83 0.0 COO 2 50 9 QG0 61 5 E 56- 92 50 __ 0..0. 0--100t0 00 139 1,4 10., '125 SIC, _25.9 000- 50, 0 00 26S 27 10 -242 SC, 109-000- 25fooo 576 52 9, 524 91. 5,000- -10,000 0 c c 0, c c c 0 _UNLER 2000 a c c 0 c_ .GELGRAPHIC.REGION NCRTHEAST 244 26 11 21,8 89 NORTF CENTRAL 312 38 12 -274 8 8 SOUTH- 2,65 1,5 6 __ 25C - 9-4 WEST 262 9 229 91 METROICITY TYPE CENTRAL 190 16 8 174- 92 -7SUBURBAN .42.. 507 89 INDEFENDENT 314 24 8 290 92 FORM CF GOVERNMENT MAYCF-;CUUNCIL 2166 25 9 241 gl@ CCUNCIL-MANAGER 745 9 9 676 9.1 tz cemmiss.1014 31 16 Z5 84 TCWN MEETING 23 3 13 2C 87 REP, TOWN ME.ETING e c 0 8 100 TABLE .COUNTY INITIATED MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL SUITS IN LAST TWO YEARS NO. OF HAVE INI 11- HAV@ N6i ATED LEGAL INITIATED REPORTING SUITS LLGAL SLITSi (A) NO. A NQ. X A TQTAL* ALL COUNTIES 63 23 14 L40 86 EPPULATION GROUP CVER 5009000 25 32 17 68 26 3 12 23 88 -kQ 0 51 8 16 43 84 _@-o-p_0c o- I o pjt-qog 61 4 7 57 93 Ln 2510oc- 509000 0 c 0 a 0 lOt-900- 2.5vg.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 UNCEN 2t5.QQ C 0 c 0 GECGRAPHIC REGlQlq NORTHEAST 36 3 8 33 92 NORTH CENTRAL 45 7 16 3b 6A 50 9 18 41 82 WEST 32 13 26 138 AETRC STATUS, METRC . III ..18 16 93 84 NG,N METRO 5 2 .5 IC 4;7 90 FCRM CE GOVERNMENT wITHOUT ADMINISTRATOR- 52 3 6 49 5'4 WITH ADKINISTRATOR 67 15 22 52 78 UNKNCwN 44 5 11 3S 8S Table 65 Local Intergovernmental Service,'Agreements for Environmental Functions* city Size City Size Total 2,500 25,000- 25,000 & over, (N+ (N+ - J18j) (N+-- 2,248) Prov.1.der,of Service**. Provider-of. Service Provider'of Service Spe- COG or Spe- COG or Spe- COG or Local cial Region- Local clal Region- Local cial Region- Gov rn- Dis- al Govern- DIS- al Govern- Dis- a] SERVICE -TOTAL0 mente trict Units TOTALI' ment trIct Units TOTALO ment trict Units N N % H % N N N III % N % , N % N % N % Air Pollution Abatement 92 5, 75 82, 7 8 10 11 29 8 20+ 69 2 7 7 24 121 5 95 79 9 7 17 14 Noise Abatement 32 2 27 84 2 6 3 9 12 3 10 83 2 17 44 2 37 84 2 5 5 11 Water Pollution Abatement 42 2 30 71 6 14 6. 14 12 .3 8 67 3 25 1 8 54 2 38 70 9 17 7 13 Soil Conser- 25 1 8 42 2 28 67 10 24 4 10 vation 30 2 20 67 7 23 3 10 12 3 8 67 3 Refuse Ln Collection 32 2 26 81 5 16 1 3 7 2 1 14 5 71 1 14 39 2 27 69 10 26 2 5 Ul Sewage Disposal 195 16' 119 61 60 31 16 8 80 21 W 58 27 34 7 9 675 12 165 60 87 32 23 8 Sewer Lines 79 4 44 56 28 35 7 9 22 6 15 68 6 27 1 5 101 4 59 58 34 34 8 8 Solid Waste Disposal 125 7 109-1 879 7 7 6 43 11 37 .86 5 12 1 2 168 7 146 87 14 8 8 5 Water Supply 155 8 108 70 42 27 5 3 52 14 27 52 23 44 2 4 207 9 135 65 65 31 9 3 Water Dis- tribution 85 5 48 56 32 38 5 6 11 3 10 91 1 9 - - 96 4 58 60 33 34 5 5 Planning 130 7 75 58 6 5 49 38 34 9 12 35 3 9 19 56 164 7 87 53 9 5 68 41 Zoning Subdiv- Islon Control 64 3 51 80 2 3 11 17 B. 2 6 75 2 25 72 3 57 79 2 3 13 18 Sources: Recalculated from: Joseph F. Zimmerman, Urban Date Service I tergovrnmenta' S :rvicepAgriements for Smaller Munlclapll ,;. ntTo., T,7,1, , . 7 ties (Washington, D. C., International City Management As! la TbT ana Joseph r. Zimmerman, "Meeting Service Needs Through Intergovernmental Agreements," In The Municipal Year Book: 1973 (Washington, D. C.: International City Management Association, 1973). Table 3/10, pp.-gV--F Number responding to Survey. 0 Percentages based on the total responding to the survey. Percentages based on the total reporting they are receiving services. TABLE 66 CITY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY Number of Evaluated User's Very In- Very In- Ef@f ect i ven*e'ss Reporting Effecti*ve. Effective Neutral Effective Effective -index -T]T- (2) _T3_7_ (4.) Total, A] I C 1 t i es 16 29' 93 28 8 -2 76 6 1,70 Popy.l.a t ion Group Over 500,000 5 2' 1 0 0 0 -100 2@9,000-500 000 7 2 0 86 - @O 86 1'00,000-i50'000 '21 14 2 @,2 0 81 - 10 71 @5Q,0007100,900 @27 3' 19 2 3 0 81 1-1 70 25,000- 50,000 40 6 23 8 3 0 72 - 8 64 10.,000- 25400:0 @.60 1 1@ 32. 15. 0 @2 72 - 3 64 Ge'o raph 16 keg'!c;n Ln .9 :1 7 t-3 11 Northeast'. 38 9 19 9 @4 Nor'th,..Ceniral 47 8 29 7 2 79 6 73 South 22 2 1 3 0 82 - 14 68 -West .53 .10 29 11, 2 1 74 - @6 '68 Metro/City Type -Central 4 82 - 8 74 50 .30, Suburban 83 .14 46 18 3 72 - 6 66 Independent .17 4 17 5 1 01' 74 Form of Government Mayor-Council 42 9 26 5 2 0 83 - 5 = 78 Council-Manager 110 19 65 19 5 2 76 - 6 = 70 Other 8 1 2 4 1 0 38 - 13 = 25 TABLE 67 COUNTY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY Number Eva I ua ted In- Very In- Effectivenes of Users Very Reporting FffAi--tive Effective Neutral Effective Effecti.ve Index A W (3) (4) (5) TOTAL, AILL COUNT:IES 62. 10 39 10 3 0 79 5 74 Populadon6roup 01 81 - 0 = 87 Oyer,500,000 15 2 0 80 -10*1- 70 2-50*000-5001000 10 2- .6 1 1 0 90 - 5- 85 20 5 .13 1 1 100,000-250,000 9 6 1 0 ..59 - 6 53 5O"OOO-lOO:'OOO 17, 1 Geographic Redion 0 88 0'-88* U'l 2 2 0 Northeast 17. 13 4 0 0 @.69 0- 69 North, Central. 13. 2 7 -2 1 0 82 6- 76 South '17 @4 10 2 2 0 73 -13 = 60 West 15 2 Metro Status 0 5 79 Metro 43 8 28 @5 2 0 68 5- 63 Non Metro 19 Form-of Government 6-= 69' .-mWitho.ut..AdmI, n.iIstrator 16 2 10 ..3 1 0 75 - 8 0 81-- 3'@7 W! th Admi ni strator 31@ 6@_ 19 5 1 73 -Unknown 15 2 10 2 1 0 8o - 7 TABLE 68 CITY EVALUATION OF CITIZEN ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD (CREATED) Number of Evaluated Users Very_ In- Very In- Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effective Neutral Effective Effective Index (A) (2) (3) (4) (5) 17 Total, A1.1 Cities 207 15 56 8 61 1'2 49 Population Grou Over 500, 1000 1P 5 1 3 1 0 0 80 - 0= 80 250,000-500,000 8 0 5 3 0 0 63 - 0= 63 100,.000-250,000 16 3 7 5 1 0 63 - 6 57. 50,000-100,000 38' 2 17 13@- 4 2 50 - 16 34 25,000- 50,000 58 3 30 15* 8 2 57 - 17 40, 1.0,000- 25,000 82 6 49 19 4 4 67 - 10 57. Ln Geographic Region 00 Northeast 71 4 33 27 4 3 52 - 10 42 North Central 61 7 37 11 6 0 72.- 10 62 South 33 3 19 8 2 1 .67 - 9 58 West .42 1 22 10 5 4 55 - 21 34 Metro/City Type Central 50 4 24 17 4 1 56 - 10 = 46 Suburban 121 9 64 32 10 6 60 - 13 = 47 Independent 36 2 23 7 3 1 69 - 11 = 58 Form of Government Mayor-Council 61 5 @6 18 2 67 - 3= 64 Council-Manager 131 9 65 34 15 8 56 - 18 = 38 Other 15 1 10 4 0 0 73 - 0= 73 TABLE 69 CITY EVALUATION OF CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ENVIRONMENT Number Eva! uatied of Users Very In- Ve@ry In- Effectiveness Re0orting Effective Effective- Neutral Effective Effective Index (A) (2) (3) (4) (5) .120 49 26 47 20 27 Total,A)l Cities 366 18 153 - Pbp6lation,Group 'Over @'500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - @_250,000-500,000 @10 0 7 3 0 0 70 - 0 70 1,00,000-250,000 27 2 10 8 6 1 44 -@26 18 50, 0007 10.0, 000 51 1 @21 17 7 5 43 24 ig 25,@OOO- 50,000 84 4 29 25 )7 -9 39 '31 8 Id1OOO- 25,000 194 11 86 67 19 11 50 1'5 35 Geog raph I c,.Reg i on Northeast. .94 4 38 32 13 7 45 21 =_24 Ln North- Central 7 47 .29 13 10 51 22 =.29 `64 4 27 22 2 '48 17 31 South 9 West 102 3 41 37 14 7 43 il 22 Metro'hity"Type t6ntrzil 67 3 26 21 12 5 43 - 25 18 Suburban -193 10 79 64 23 .17 46 - 21 25 06 5 35 .14 lnde@pe'ndent 48 4 50 17 33 Form of Government Mayor-Council .162 5 41 35 8 51 15 .=.36 Council-Manager 246 '12 95 82 39 18 @41 19 24 Other 3 2 1 ''67 17 50 TABLE 70 COUNTY EVALUATION OF CITIZEN ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD Number Eva.) uated. of'Users Very In- Very ln@ Effectiveness, Reporting Effective Effecti.ve Neutral Effect,ive :Effective Index A (1) --F2T-- _(3) (4) -(5) TOTAL,'ALL COUNT.IES 45 7 19 13,, 6 0 -58 13 45 Population.Group Over -500iOOO 8 0 3 4 1 .0 .38 13. 25 250MO-500,000 9 2 3 -3 1 0 56 11 45 63 =.-,38 109,000@Z50,000 16 3 7 2 A 0 25 50,000r,71-00,000 12 2 6 4 _0 0 67 -7 0 67 Geographic Region Northeast I 1 0 8 3 0 0 73 73 No r t hCen tra.1 13. 4 4 5 0 0 -62 O.-=-62 South.'- 10 1 4 1 4 40 = 10, 0 50, West 1] 2 3 4 2 .0 45 18 = 27 Metro -Status .Metro 31, 5 10 5 0 52 7- 16 = 36 Non Metro 14 2 8 3 1 0 71 - 7 = 64 Form'.0f -Government Without Adm.inistrator 12 3 5 .4 0 67 'O@= W,ith Administrator 22- 2 7 8 5 41. -.,23 = 18 Unknown 11 2 7 1 1 0 82, - 9- 73 TABLE 71 COUNTY EVALUATION OF CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ENVIRONMENT ed Number @Evaluat of.Users Very In- Very In- Effectiveness Reporting Effect,ive Effective Neutral Effective Effective Index __TAT_ (1) 7- _T3) (4) (5) Tota'l, All Counties 59 8- 24 @19 7 1 547 W.'. -4o Population Group 4 4 3 0 36@2T= 9 Over 500,000 11 0 56 ',0 56 0 _250,,OOO-5OO,OOO 4 4 0 9 6 1 1 @-64 9,@ 55 !"100, 000-250'-000 22 5 9 -100-000 53 18, `= 35 2,000 P 17 2 7 5 3 0 Geographic Region -Northeast, 10 0 6 2 2 0 60 201= 40 North ten -t ra,I1 19 7 6 0 1 63 -5- 58 South, 17 6 6 4 0 41 23 18 F_ 5 54 -8 46 West 13 2 5 1 0 Met,ro Status 46 15 - 31 ;Metro@. 41 5 14 5 Non Metro 18 3 110 3 2 0 72- 11 61 Form-of overnment @Wi'thout Administrator 19 3 7 7 1 1 4 2 With Administrator 24 3 9 9 3 0 -50 1. 3 3 7 .63 A 9 44 Unknown 16- 2 8 3 3 0 TABLE 72 CITY EVALUATION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS Evaluated Number Very In- Very In- Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effective. Neutral Effective Effective Index (A) FIT- (2) (3) (4) (5) Total, A1.11 Cities 652 69 317 180 62 24 59 13 Population.Group Over 500,000 8 0 5 1 2 0 63 - 25 = 38 250,000-500,000 13 2 6 5 0 0 @62 - 0= 62 .100,000-250,000 50 2 28 10 6 4 6o - 20 = 4o 50,000-100,000 97 9 47 28 12 1 58 - 13 = 45 25,000- 50,000 160 13 87 38 16 6 63 - 14 = 49 10,000- 25,000 324 43 144 98 26 13 58 - 12 = 46 Geographic Region Northeast 132 18 64 33 13 4 62 - 13 = 49 tj North Central 193 20 93 56 17 7 59 - 12 = 47 South 145 15 65 50 13 2 -55 - 10 = 45 West 182 16 95 41 19 H 61 - 16 = 45 Metro/City Type Central 142 12 73 4o 15 2 60 - 12 = 48 Suburban 315 33 149 88 31 14 58 14 = 44 Independent 195 24 95 52 16 8 61 12 = 49 Form of Government Mayor-Council 149 19 70 4o 12 8 60 - 13 = 47 Council-Manager 475 48 235 128 49 15 .60 -13 = 47 Other 28 2 12 12 1 1 50 - 7 = 43 TABLE 73 COUNTY EVALUATION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS Evaluated Number Very, In- Very In- Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effecti.ve Neutral Effective Effective Index __TAT_ (1) (2) (3) (4) _T57- Total, All 'C @ount les 114 @18 55 28 9 4 64 12 52 Population" Group OvIer',500, 000 21 4 4 71 10 . 1_@ I 25Q,000 50 , 0,000 18@ 1 12 5 O@ 0 72'- 0 72 60, 000-;250, OGO 42 8 13 11 8 2 50 - 24 26 50,000-100,000 33 5 19 8 0 73.- 3: 70 Geograp@ic Reg,i.on Northeast 26 4 13 4 4' 1 65 46, North Central 28 5 17 6 0 0 79 - 0 .79 H South 32 4 12 10 4 2 50 - 19 31 West- 28, 8 1 64 - 7 57 5 13 Metr Status, : @" i - _'.. ' . - 13 46 Metro 83 12 37@' 23 8 3 59 Non,Metrq,-, 31 6 18 5 1 1 77 - 6 71 . Fo rm, Oft.overnment Wit@dut Administrator 32 3 18 8 1 2 66 9 57 Wit1h AdministratoIr 54 8 23. 15,:, 7 1 57 15 4@2. Unknown 28 7 14 5 1 75 7 68 TABLE 74 CITY EVALUATION OF LAND USE CONTROLS Evaluated Number Very In- Very In- Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effective Neutral Effective Effective Index (A) CIT- (2) -73-7- (4) (5) Total, All Cities 823 259 481 56 24 3 90 - 3 = 87 Population Group 2 4 0 1 0 86 - 14 = 72 Over 500,000 7 250,000-500,000 14 3 9 2 0 0 86 - .0 = 86 100,000-250,000 55 16 31 6 21 0 85 - 4 -.81 50,,000-100,000 120 28 81 8 2 1 91 - 3 = 88 25,000- 50,000 206 68 114 15 8 1 .88- 4.= 84 10,000- 25,000- 421 142 242 25 1) 1 91 - 3 88 Geographic Region -Northeast 178. 56 108 9 4 1 92 - 3 North,Central 235 73 139 15 8 6 90 - -3= 87 South-* 184 47 113 17 5 2 87 - 4 = 83 West 226 83 121 15 0 - 3 = 87 Metro/City Type , .-Central 157 42- 95 15. 4 1. 87 3 = 84 .Suburban 430. 150 241 24 14 1 91 3 = 88 Independent 236 67 145 17 6 1 go 3 = 87 Form of Government Mayor-Council 182 57 98 17 9 1 85 5 = 80 Council-Manager 601 193 357 34 15 2 92 3 = 89 Other 470 9 26 5 0 .0. 88 0 = 88 TABLE 75 COUNTY EVALUATION OF LAND USE CONTROLS Evaluated Number Very In- Very In- Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effective Neutral Effective Effective Index --- (A)- _T3_T_ (5) (1) (2) (4) Total, ALI -Counties 120 39 63 12. 0 86 81 Population.Group .Over-500,000 20 4 ..12 2 2 0 80 - 10 =.,70 -250,000-500,000, ..20 .12 .0 '90 - 0 =."90 45 i7 20 6 -2 0 87 - 4 "83 50,000-100,000 35 12 19 2 2 0 89 - 6 83 Geographic Region Northeast 6 14: @.5 0 .77- 4 -='73 North Central- 11 118 1 '0 0 97 - 0 =97 .5 South 16 12 16 3 0 78 - 14= 64 Ln West 28 10 15 3 0 0 89 - o = 89 Metro Status Metro 89 .24 50 10 5 0 83 - 6 77 Non.Metro 31 15 13 2 1 0 90 - 3 87 Form of Government Without Admin-istrator 33 11 16 3 3 0 82 - 9 73 With Administrator 54 17 29 6 2 0 85 - 4 81 Unknown 33 .11 18 3 1 0 88 - 3 .=;,,.8 5 TABLE 76 CITY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS Evaluated Number Very In- Very In- Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effective- Neutral Effective Effective Index (A) 71- (2) (3) (4) (5) 77 4 73 Tota'] NI I C-i't i es 673 117 399 128 24 5 PopU I at i'on-'G roup Over 500,000 8 3 4 0 1 0 88 - 13= 75 .250,000-500,000 15 6 6 2 1 0 80 - 7 = 73 1001000-250,000 51 6 37 6 1 1 84 4 = 80 .50,000-100,000 94 15 61 13 3 2 81 5 = 76 25,000- 50,000 159 24 100 30 3 2 78 3 = 75 10,060- 25,000 346 63 191 77 15 0 73 4 = 69 Geograph,ic Region '77 3 = 74 '-'Northeast 130 20 8o 26 2 2 No rt h 'C e"n t ra 1 202 35 117 38 12 0 75 6 = 69 South 157 25 93 31 6 2 75 5 = 70 Wes t'@ 184 37 109 33 4 1 79 3 = 76 Metro/City.Type Central 141 25 90 18 6 2 82 - 6 = 76 Sur burban 334 62 192 65 14 1 76 - 4 = 72 Independent 198 30 117 45 4 2 74 3 = 71 Form of Government Mayor-Council 141 24 .74 36 7 0 70 - 5 = 65 Council-Manager 501 89 305 87 16 4 79 - 4 = 75 Other 31 4 20 5 1 1 77 6 = 71 TABLE 77 COUNTY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL]TY STANDARDS Evaluated Number Very In- Very In- Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effective Neutral Effective Effective Index. (A) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Total, All Counties 104 19 69 13 1 2 85 - 3 = 82 Population Group Over 500,000 19 3 15 1 0 0 95 - 0 = 9-5 250 '000-506,000 18 2 12 3 0 1 78 - 6= 72 1010'000-250,000 38 10 21 5 1 1 82 - 5= 77 50,000-100,000 29 4 21 4 0 @0 86 - 0= 86 Geographic Region Nort .1 heast 22 3 16' 3 0 0 86 - 0= 86 North Central 25 4 17 4 0 0 84 - o= 84 South 32 9 16 5 1 1 78 - 6= 72 -J West 25 3 20 1 0 1 92 - 4= 88 Metro Status Metro 77 13 51 10 1 2 83 - 4= 79 Non Metro 27 6 18. 3 0 0 89 - 0= 89 Form-of Government Without Administrator 26 6 17 3 0 0 88 - o= 88 With Administrator 49 9 32 6 1 1 84 - 4= 80 Unknown 29 4 20 4 0 1 83 - 3= 8o TABLE 78 CITY EVALUATJON OF TAX INCENTIVES Number Evaluated of Users Very In- Very In- Effect.iveness Reporting Ef f ect irve Ef f ect.i.ve Neutral Effective Effective Index (A) _T1T_ (2),-, __77M_ Total,, Al 1. Cities@ 18' 5 8* 5 0 0 72 0 72 Popu tat ton: -Group: Over .500, 000 - 0 01 O.@ 0 259@,.OOQ_500, 000 a 0 0 0 100,000-250,000 2 0 1 0 0 50 0 50, ,50 .000-100'.0007 3- 2 0 .0 0- 1 00@. -0 00, 50-P 000, 6. 1 4- 1 0 0 83'-..o 8 3@` 1.0., 000-,.. 25,,000' 7. 2 2., 3. O_. 0 57 0- 57 Geographi-c' -Region O'= 100 00 Northeast. 1 0 1 0 0 0 100 North CentraA. 12 4 4, 4; 0 0, 67.- O"= 67 South 2- 1 Q_ 1 .0, 0 50 - 0 =-, 50 West 3, d, 0 6 0 1 do, 0'1_7@_ "100, Metro/C I ty Type Central 5 3 1 1 0 0 80 0 80 Suburban 6 .0 4. 2, 0 0 67. 0 67: 11 Inde-pendIent 7 3 0 0 71 0 71- Form of Government Mayor-Council 2. 3 0 I,QO .5 0: 11,OQ Council-Manager 5 5 0 -@62@ -0 6 2 -13 3 Other 0 0 0 @0 0 0 TABLE 79 COUNTY EVALUATION OF TAX INCENTIVES Number ... Evaluated of Users .Very In- Very In- Effect-ivenes@s R t* Effective Ef f ect i.-ve-.. Neutra-I Effective Effective Index eporting --TA7- (1) (2) -T37- (4) (5) Totalj All Counties ..13 1 7 4 0 1 62 8 54 Popu I-at [on - G roup Over 500,000 7 1 4 2 0 0 7-1 0 71 .25Q:2000-500,000- 2 0 '1 1 0 0 50 0 ` 50 I 00@i 000- 2 50, 0001- 4 0 2 1 1 2 50 5@ @50,000r-];OOPOOO 0 0 0 0 'Geographic Region F@ Northeast 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 - 0 = 0 M North,Central. 2 0 1 1 0 0 50 - -0 = 50 ko South'. 5 3. .1. 0 A 6.0 - '20 = 40 West- 5 3 -1 0 "'0 0 = 80- Met ro. Status Metro 12 1 6- 4 0 1 58 8 = 50 Non--Metro@ 1 0 1 0 0 0 100 0 = 100 Form. -of -Government W,iihout-Admin.istra-tor 2 0 -2 0 0 0 100 - 0 = 100 With AdmInistrator .10 1 5 0 0 60 - 0 = 60 Unknown 1 0 0 ..0 01. 1 0 -1,00-100 TABLE 80 CITY EVALUATION OF PENALTY CHARGES Number Evaluated of-Users Very In- Very In- Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effective Neutral Effective Effective l,ndex' -T47- (A) (1) (2) (3) (5) Total, A11'Citi6s 166 33 79 41 11 2 67 8 59 Population Group Over '500,000 3 1 0 0 '67 0 = 67 250�'000-500,000 .5. 0 2 3 0 0 40 o = W 100,000-250,000 19 3 10 4 1 1 0 11 = 57 50,000-100,000 21 11 8 .1 .0 57 5 = '52 :Z5,000- 50,000 39 6 19 10 3 1 64 - VO = 54 10,000- 25,000 79 22 36 -15 6 73 - 8 '65 Geographic Reg 1 on Northeast 32 6 13 10 3 0 59 - 9 = 50 North"C6nteal' 58 13 30 .12 1 2 74 - 5 - 09 South: .50 @9 25 13 3 0 68 - 6 = 62 W e- 11 6 A 0 62 - 15 = 41 , st 26 5 met:ro/ClityJype' Central 41 5 21 )3 1 1 63 - 5 = 58 Suburban 76 19 33 15 8 .1 68 - 12 = 56 Independent 49 9 25 13 2 0 69 - 4 = 65 Form of Government Mayor-Council @40 6 18 13 3 0' 60 - 8 52 Council-Manager 120 26 58 26 8 2 70` 8 62- Other 6 1 3 2 0 0 67 - 0 67 TABLE 81 COUNTY EVALUATION OF PENALTY CHARGES Number Evaluated of Users Very In- Very In- .,Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effective Neutral Effective Effective Index (A) (1) (2) _T3_T_ (4) (5) Total, All Counties 25 4 11 2 1 44 - 12 N ..Populati,on Group Over 500,000 9 2 3 4 0 0 45 - 0 45 250,000-500,000 4 1 1 2 6 0 0 50 100,000-250,000 0 2 4 2 1 33 - 22 11 '50,000-100,000 3 1 1 1 0 0 67 - 0 67 Geographic Region Northeast 2 1 0 1 0 0 50 - 0 = 50 North Central. 6 0 4 1 0 67 - 17 = 510 South 8 1 2 3 1 1 38 - 25'= 13 West 9 2 1 6 0 0 33 - 0 33 Metro Status Metro 21, 3 6 9 2 1 43 - 14 29 Non Metro 4 1 1 2 0 0 50 - 0 50 Form of Government Without Administrator 6 2 1 .2 1 0 50 - 17 33 With Administrator 14 2 4 8' 0 0 43- 0 .43 Unknown 5 0 12 1 1 1 40 4o o TABLE 82 CITY EVALUATION OF MORATORIA.. Number. Eval-vated. of Users Very In- @Very In- Effecti,venets., Re4rt.i ng Effective -,Effectivie. Neutral Effective. tffective I ndeic (A) (I __T2_F_ _T3_F_ (4) (5) Total,_A]I,Cities, 150 31 62 34 - 16 7 62" @15 47 Population Group Over 500,000 2 0 2 0 0 100 '0 - 100 250,000-500,OOQ, 3 1 1 1 .0 67 - '0 - 67 100,000-250,0W 11 2 5 2* 2- @O @64 - 18 - 46 50, 000` 100 P 000 29 7 1-2 1 66 - 1-4 - 52 25,000-. 50,000 33 7 10' A .2- 52 - 18 -.,34 10,000- 2@,OOO 72 14 .-32,' 15 7 4 64 - 15 49. Geographic Region Northeast. 35 9 .14- 8, 3 1 66 -11 55 North Central 5 12 8 2 57 17 - '40 South 32 8 IA o '13 = 56 West 53 9 12 7 3 58 19 - @9 Me'tro/City Type Central 28 7 13 4 3 1 71 14, = 57 Suburban .93 15 43 21 9 5 62 15 = .47 Independent 2.9 9 6 9 4 @-l 52 17 = 35 Form of Government Mayor-Council 31 5 15 - 8 2 1 65 10- 55 Council-Manager 117 24 47 26 14 6 61 17 = 44 Other 2 2 0 0 0 0 100 0 = 100 TABLE 83 COUNTY EVALUATION OF MORATORIA Number Evaluated of Users Very In- Very In- Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effective Neutral Effective Effective Index (2) (4) J5) Total, All Counties 23 3 9 10 1 0 52 - 4 48 Population Group Over 500,000 10 1 3 @5 1 0 4o - 10= 30 259,006-5QO,000 6 1 3 2 0 0 67 - o = 67' 10.0,000-250,000 2 0 1 1 .0 .0 50 - 0 = 50 50,000-1009bOO 5 1 2 2 0 60 - o = 60 Geographic Region Northeast 4 1 2 1 0 @40 75 - 0 = 75 North Central 2 1 0 1 0 :0 50 - 0 = 50 South 10 0 6 4 0 0 6o - o = 6o West 7 1 1 4 1 29 - 14= 15 Metro Status Metro 19 2 7 9 1 0 47 - 5 = 42 Non " Met ro 4 1 2 1 0 .0 75 - 0 = 75 Form of Government Without Administrator 3 2 1 0 0 0 100 0 = 100 With Administrator 14 1 5 7 1 0 43 7 = 36 Unknown 6 0 3 3 0 0 50 0 = 50 TABLE 84 CITY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS Number Evaluated.. of Users Very In- Very)n- Effecti'venes:s Reporting Effective Effective Neutral Effective Effective Index- (A) --(27-- (3) (4) --F5T- TOTAL, 'A I ICities 243 18. 126 62 28 59 15 =.44 Population Group Over 500,000 2 0 0 2 0 0 250,000-500,000 6, 0 3 2 0 1 50 17 = 133 100,000-250,000 16 2 9. 4 1 0 69 6 = 63 50 45 5 22 12 5- 1 60 13 = 47i 25,000- 50,000 54 4 30 15 1 63 9 = 54 10,000- 25'tOOO 120 7 62 27 18 6 58 20 = 38 H Geographic Region Northeast' 24 0 12 7 4 1 50 21 = 29 North Central 34 1' 14 8 6 5 44 32 = 12 South 31 0 12 13 1 39 19 20 West 154 17 88 34 13 2 68 10 58 Metro/City Type Central 39 2 20 12 3 2 56 13 43 Suburban 156 14 84 35 18 5 63- 14 = 49 Independent 48 2 22 15 7 2. 50 - 18 = 32- Form of Government Mayor-Council 33 1 13 13 4 2 42 - 18 = 24 Council-Manager 201 17 109 45 23 7 63 - 15 = 48 Other 9 0 4 4 1 0 44 - 11 = 33 TABLE 85 COUNTY-EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS Number Evaluated of Users Very -in- Very J:n- Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effective Neutral Effective Effective Index (A) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) TOTAL,- All Counties 40 5 15 12 8 0 51 - 20 = 3) Population Group Over 500 '000 -9 1 5 1 2 0 67 - 22 = 45 250,000-500,000 8 1 2 2 3 0 38 - 38 = 0 100,000-250,000 16 2 5 @7 2 0 44 -13 = 31 50,000-1009000 7 1 3 2 1 0 57 - 14 = 43 Geographic Region Northeast 4 0 1 3 0 0 25 - 0= 25 North Central 9 2 1 4 2 0 33 - 22 = 11 South 6 0 2 2 2 0 33 - 33 = 0 West 21 3 11 3 4 0 61 - 19 = 48 Metro Status Metro 31 3 11 10 7 0 45 - 23 = 22 Non Metro 9 2 4 2 1 0 67 - 11 = 56 Form of Government Without Administrator 6 1 1 4 0 0 33 - 0= 33 With Administrator 28 3 14 5 6 0 61 - 21 = 40 Unknown 6 1 0 3 2 0 17 - 33 =-16 TABLE 86 CITY EVALUATION OF LAW SUITS Number Evaluated of Users Very In- Very In- Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effective Neutral Effective Effective Index ___FAT_ (1) (2) (4) (5) Total, All Cities 74 12 R.. 16 11 3 59 19 = 40 Population Group Over 500,000 1 0 1 0 0 0 100 0= 100 ?5Q,000-500,000 3 2 1 0 0 0 100 0= 100 1-00,000-250,000 4 0 4 0 0 0 100 0= 100 50,000-100,000 9 0 6 2 1 0 67 11 = 56 @25,000- 50,000 22 2 8 6 5 1 45 - 27 = 28 10,000- 25,000 35 8 12 8 5 2 57 - 20 = 37 Geographic Region Northeast 21 1 7 8 3 2 38 - 24'= 14 North Central 23 6 8 5 3 1 61 - 17 = 44 South 9 3 4 1 1 0 78 - 11 67 West 21 2 13 2 4 0 71 - 19 52 Metro/City Type Central 13 2 10 1 0 0 92 - 0 92 Suburban 45 6 17 12 9 1 51 - 22 29 Independent 16 4 5 3 2. 2. 56.- 25 -31 Form of Government Mayor-Council 15 3 8 3 1 0 73 - .7 66 Council-Manager 55 9 23 10 10 3 58 - 24 34 Other 4 0 1 3 0 0 25 - 0 25 TABLE 87 COUNTY EVALUATION OF.LAW SUITS. Number Evaluated' of Users Very In- Very In- Effectiveness Reporting Effective Effective Neutral Effective Effective Index- (A) 03 -T27- -737- (4) (5) Total, All Counties 18 5 2 2 72 - 22 = 50 Population Group Over 1500,000 7 3 2 0 1 1 71 - 29 = 42 250-,000-500,,000 3 0 1 1 0 1 33 - 33 = 0 6 1 4 0 1 0 83 - 11 = 66 50,000-100,000 2 1 0 0 0 100 - 0 = 100 Geographic Region Northeast 2 0 0 1 1 0 0- 50 = -50 North Central 5 2 3 0 0 0 100 - 0 = 100 South 7 2 4 0 1 0 86 - 14 = 72 West 4 1 1 0 0 2 50 - 50 = 0 Metro Status Met, ro 14 4 6 1 1 2 71 - 21 = 50 Non Metro 4 1 2 0 1 0 75 - 25 = 50 Form of Government Without Administrator 2 0 1 0 1 0 50 - 50 = 0 With Administrator 12 4 4 1 1 2 67 - 25 = 42 Unknown 4 1 3 0 0 0 100 - 0 = 100 TABLE 88 EVALUATED EFFECTIVENESS INDEX SCORES* FOR CITIES Inter- Environ- Govern- mental Citizen Citizen mental Impact Board Board Arrange- Land Stand- Incen- Penalty Mora- State- Law Agency+ Created+ Expanded+ ments+ Use* ards* tives+ Charges+ toria+ ments+ Suits+ Tot a] 70 49 27 46 87 73 72 59 47 43 40 Population Group Over 500,000 - 1010 '80 38 72 75 250,000-500,000 86 63 70 62 86 73 40 33 100,000-250,000 71 18 40 81 8o 57 46 63 50,000-100,000 70 .34 ig 45 88 76 52 52 47 56 25,000- 50,000 64 40 8 49 84 75 83 54 34 54 28 10,000- 25,000 88 57 35 46 88 69 57 65 49 38 37 Geographic Region Northeast 71 42 24 49 89 74 50 55 29 14 F- North Central 73 62 29 47 87 69 67 69 4o 12 44 --j South 68 0 31 45 83 70 62 .56@ 20 67 co West 68 34 22 45 87 76 47 39 58 52 Metro/City TYpe Central 74 46 18 48 84 76 80 58 57 43 92 Suburban 66 47 25 44 88 72 67 56 47 49 29 Independent 74 58 33 49 87 71 71 65 35 32 31 Form of Government Mayor-Council 78 64 36 47 80 65 100 52 55 24 66 Council Manager @70 38 24 47 89 75 62 62 44 48 34 Other 25 73 50 43 88 71 67 33 *Evaluated Effectiveness Index-Score is defined as the proportion considering the strategy effec tive minus the proportion considering it ineffective.. +Scores based on users of particular strategy, only. 4 Scores are based on all respondents **Less than five respondents in category, and thus considered too few to calculate meaningful index scores. TA13LE 'HAJOR FACTORS CONTRIBUT1NrkjO DEVELO IPMENT OF CITY ENVIRONMENTAL I)RnrRAM@ NO. OF ENVIRONM.- CONCERNE0 ENAULING ST OF FED ACTIVE EN- STATE ENTAL L)L- MUNICIPAL LLGISLA- AVAILAeLL FINANCIAL PUBLIC VIRUNMENT/ FtDERAL xLz kLPORTIVG -Tb00RATN Cf-FICIALS I I LIN EXPEkTISE INCLNT1Vc'".5 SUPPORI civic GRPS CLIt@PENTII@ C TH L -R (A) WG . 4 .4 h(". t @t A N L: A NC. A NU . A Nu. A NL. 6 TcTftLv ALL LIT I t@S- SCI 266 2 1) 677 15 -25U Z8 1,67 19 3 /13 38 454 0 3c;5- 44 613, -.6 e 4,@ PUPULATION (.RUU1 Lly t ,, :i 0 U 0 U 10 5 5 C 10 ljo, 6 oo 4 4U 60 1C 100 6 CIO 6 @60 u u 775-0,,QCL-500, ouu 11 7 41 11 65 6 35 -4 2y 9 53 t @ 5 1; 5:3 12 '71- 100 r@uo,)-,e5k;p W.U 54 23 43 45 6-3 1 2S @72 2k) 3-1 15 28 24 44 3-1 6 2 1,28 45 35' 1@7 7 34 2-1 ;@4 1@i :3 li, 30 bs 54 7F 55 S2 72 '250@UO- -50t0Q0 228 is 35 176 77 54 24 46 20 79 35 ill 49 105 46 13S ki, 9 4 ic7 23 33 8 73 130 b 73 16 186 40 2@@'i 4E 172 37 325 7C J i@ @5,CO@)- lUjooU 0 Q Q Q 0 U, u 0 0 0 0 C, C. 0- C- 0- j u 5,,@cu Q . c c L C 0 u L L 6 Q -C u Q -. UNGiR i,500 0 0 c 0 u 0 0, 0 0 j N 76 39 loc 5C 110, 55 . 2ce 64 :32 149 -75 57 29 40 20 12C 6C 5 3 NU11i CtNTKAL 71 .28 204 7:; 46 It! 7 @12 4 10b 41 lki AS 114 44 166 64 5 z sfjufh 1 1, - -@7 2 D 4 $b 2b 14S -(3 56 21 3b 1@; 1@;4 51 IC5 51 3 6 147 WEST 2:i a 13 31 175 74@ 91 .4,8 26 12 55 23 122 51 -sl 41 16C 76 7 MET@LICITY TYPL CE(@ [RAL 168 65 39, 13 1 7 6 :)b 35 41 ?4 81 48 OE 5Z b3 45 12C, 71 SUBURBAN 4 7!) 136 2s. 370 '16 134 Zd 8 3--Yr IZ6 27 256 54 223 47 3cz 64t izi -3 INU t F CNILJ LN T 25 8 cj 25 1 7-b. 68 '58 zz 4.@ 17 1 @j 4 52 lie 43 @b(@ 34 ri;_1 74-3 1 FCRM CF G@jVtAsMa:@WT 266 ec 2S 157 76 101 49 511 4!i 128 6z 54 26 @Z 4 94 46 CJU, i L I L-,--1 krN A G c.@ 643 1 Z 9 2@ 4E2 Y5 lb2 28 107 .17 2 i'@ J6 3 2 6 51 2 12 4z 4 5 71 1 LCM!-'. IS S I 6N 27 10 37 17 o 2 6 22 6 22 14 52 12 44 1 17 63 TUv4f MEt:TJ;1G 18 6 33 1:) 83 b 33 1 6 3 P. IC 56 11 61 1 c- !@b 6 .AEP. TCWN MEETING 71 1 14 6 b6 29 3 4 3 71 4 57 57 u OOT 0 7 2 m c 0 (I m ZI rr rl %.n r ul < X :' --l G, r; --4 I'm .11 Cl 1.11 C@ r. C C'. r C--n C@ C@ C' Yl C: n n; 'r. C C, r C. L, k@ --I, > r C, -T '. c li V. cl@ Cl I I I C' r: r- 3 z -4 . . P-- N V. - Z f- < C, @ 1% v c, U C @ C' @;@- C. k . f- U; C. C., C C' C - C. rr . . . . . . . C" 7' C c o C.-. 0 C. c C:" 0 c m C' C: CC, C C '. 'U r@ c0 r r. 4@1 C i7 7' z u 4% lr@ I o U: .9, r; b NO t1i U, ci fl; co a C@ C, z elli -4 C. m a 0 0 V, %P N A- cr, l7i -i M M 3c, Ln X I krl tl@ t" kr. 41 C@ rr' -9 fr, U" N Ln 4. cr, 41 c 0 C, Al -j - w I I 4 CA n In N %t 0: a W, C) 0 0 c a N: 41 Ln 0 n m x > Iz ;l -4 CC a r@ > rr. :0 0 Ill LA fr. Ono 0 c 0 cl, m ul -i J r e." -4 tr, v Ol 41 V, 0 0 0 0 Ol .4 w a. a a 41 J. u 41 w V. C. -P, lr_ rl- < I'm M, C. r. Z P. '0 M c cl, 0 C" C, 1> 71 W I p- N to Ll t'j 4. r- to 0 0@ w 0 C)CO06WN@ M n z m o- rlw 1- 0- 1 10 0 41 a .4 r, V. 0 C, cl C n Cc @ 4-4 C, 27 -:f u) On, V. w w %.r. kr J, %.n zl 01 -1 "r < 1.1: U; 0 V@ M -j Ol C, Ol 0 r- C ;> r. 0 -4 > C. V; r- . C. V 1- LO W P- Ln i,- h, ;v m en m %it i m @n C. 0- kr n W. Cl kil m 41 A, Lql 'In -i to A, krl A' @j 01 rv r': C" cr In 0 0 v -1 -4 p -4 Irl 2" rr Lr to C@ -j z m m to -i m -4 to en C') u 0 In -i m t- u n. -.r M ri, r- n, C, fr. Cc -j -4 M -1 0- w Ul c o -4 C' I em -j C. C. t, C. C, C, c c !.C C" C- 4 C, ky 41 t,4 TABLE 91. FREQUENCY OF CITY CONTACT WITH EPA No. OF ILI (21 0) (4) ----15-) C1 TIES VERY I UF RE - :VERY IN- REPOR-T.14G FRLQUENT FREQUENT WENT FkEUUENT NUNE (A) 0 low _LU AL L CITIES 1016 16b 16 315 31 217 21 L51 15 167 YARUL-A111PN, (;Rpup -UVE R - 5 0.0-t. @0,09-- 4 40' 4 40 1 L D o 10, 250,00ou-5001000 is 8 44 6 33 3 17 1 6 a 0 LU 0t 00 0 249t999 60 12 20 21 45 10 17 6 10 5 5 Uquoo 999 - 999 132 25 19 43 33 27 2u 17 13 20 -15 ,@uou- 499999 251 3 J LZ 73 29 5b 22 43 L't 49 2u L 19!_000- 24g999 545 81 L6 1-ba 30 -120 22 6-4-f@@ 92 Ff do.-.-g t-999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000- 4t999 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 kJ UNDER 2000 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 u 0 0 u i@EUGRAPHJC REGION NORTHEAST 226 34 15 60 27 54 24 35 15 43 FIT 301 53 18 92 31 ba 23 46 15 42 Ili s Ou I H-- 52 21 IU5 43 4 L 13 WLST 244 27 IL 'S 8 24 .5i - 64 T METRn/CITY TYPE CENTRAL LOS 47 25 81 44 30 16 16 9 LL ,--SUHUR BAN 535 55 LO L34 25 123 23 e 7' L 6 136--25 VAUEPENUE4t 296 64 ZZ 100 34 64 ZT-4 9- 16 ZU 7 FOKM OF GOVERN14ENT MAYOR-COUNCIL 24L 48 20 83 34 53 N 33 14 24 to- ccfjwc1 5 .134 1 CUNM 29 1 3 10 34 b 21 a 4 14 il t I NG 43 3 L4 --------------------------- @-q T w 21. 5 24 9 REPo TUON MEETING 6 L L7 L L? Z 33 0 0 2 3- C) -n -e _ CA 'r@ C7@ P,-r C, r1l rT c@ c I-- r: --4 rn C-71',CC 0 N- c Lr < -n --I :L@ 2. X (/@ c w x e., m C-. Ul. 0 C- C- r, c b. Zi -.4 --4 -14 - -. 1@: . . - " . . 7,@ r-. r- 7- @.r C'C C--C C) C, 1. 'n rr, > L, r. C, C@ 0 Ic c 0 0 V, M V. r, e-. Z Z r- r- V.- r- Lr, r-@ rr@ V C-, V- C- C., C'@ 0C@ C.-. n M, 17, . 7: rt, . . . . . . V 4 C@, .7,; rr, C) r- 7- 0 -A rr C) C., C) C, n C- 0 C m c C.) 0 C, C, c: Lu NJ I.- w 1- 0.- rv_ 1- UN rn N -.j kr. a. kr I-- C- 0, -4 1.- @r. w -4 t'L@ I.- Ol c. W C Ul -.4 n @,n -i tp ui cr Ln 0: ct- N -i cy@ -4 CA C-1 C-1 n A tr. ty, P, m ct, n e-, ey, i.- n w UP a, -4 4- W 0 C' LU A- ri I-- 0- a CD ol m ci 0 0 w co %P C% co N Nk LC rn rr, W Ol W, .91 Ol f- ;o ci @.n -j C, .9, C, @V M 4, tri W I- > f -n C* 0-V 0 C 0 0- 0, N W 0 4- 1,P) OD 01 U) z K) Lo N N tv N N PO N. N @N;: kp b -4 j, _j Lp L .kjn cl, Ln 0, .9- 1.- ry. rr n 2> 7 COT r) 6- cf) n rr; r ;w 7 rr N!7! C; rl r-, r) c'. c-, t@ x. 7w (-I r" z U, 0 v< -c' -i F, V, c@ V: c c c r-: C c -e. --c V, c 7, C' r 36 7 U- C", c@ U@ cc- C' -4 -Z V; -n rt; c: @. C', C. C' C, C', V. r-. "T. V, 1-@= c-: C-1 X, r.-- C', n, V-, - I 2- --i c- C' c- r", U@ LD u! C) 71 C) u C U C 0 C, C C ri. . . . . . c@ 7.@ C", C. C.@ C, C, cc c C, rr- C-1 C, c@0 C. C% 0 c: c, c, c cc E rr rr M k P. No t, 40, N, Cr, rTi tP. m w cl (A m M c@ cr U) L7) -.J 4, N c- L.@ -4 W, N N -4 w -4 M. m C 01 cc 0, W, P- tn LLI tw 0 C'v rn P" --j -4 %0 %0 Ul %T 0 cc 6. %D v 0 0 41 > m P-A G C, 0, L; 4- a C-P N 0, 4, cc H z 0 0 4 a 0, -@j -.1,V A, W to ty W %A 4- 4- 41 4- m --4 rr- "T 7., V 7- r.- C: rv m C. r) Z- C: -. , --:@ i-- r,,. U, t5. < -c C.. V- C C C, Cl (-'I C) 'C@- -C C Cl C. c- C. C. Cl L7 -i ?\.! C@ C-, C- C r-, C- C, - 1. C, C, c-, r- C) P- u C.) c- C@ p V) C, C. r C. C C) C. (71, 7- CD X, m C- C@ C-- C.@ Cl@ C C7, DO C, C C'@ c 0 C-1 c C, L. C. r- -A;" --q C) 'Ti N! L'i PQ Lr r". rl) t- I, _j m V) r, 0 to n e-, t,- cr, CIO C@ C= C') m v Ll@ c 41 It -4 (A %D 7.1 IT M t-. N, 41 N V; 177 m 0 C, 0 C, 0 b-- 0 t- w V, 41 --4 X C, C 0 0 C 0 C C 0 C 0 to p %Ob ot, 0 C.) CO) 60 C*-- N* ov *a, cr- m b.. n irr, 1 ,n c X.@ x z v 7 7- m C: M C-@ C'@ :e@ C) C, C-@CC, C@ CV, 7- > e-, -r P\: C7, C@CCC- C,.- b. Iml C, h-, V. 0k..-.CCr V, X @_P C@ CCDC C', cl- C. Ul C 7- C C C- C- C.@C @--: C, C, C, 0 C, C C, C-c c X > Co C %.D rl) In I.-, V2 G; X, U. CA C@ 0 n a Co u --)%D to rQ u; Ol Ull C C, 0 C, 0 01 41 < 0 C, r, C. C) N h-, -4 w %X. co iii, 9w too 1w, LP 3c z -4 98T 0 n:r C) 7 ft) I.Jo,; 01,00 -23, m 0 m -4 MIC) a cc z l .6 C ;c o un a tjt@o' lo m x Lim, 1 :0- c -4 0 -4 -4 -4 -4 w rrro w r I-, "z:r Ln@p- I. In rn > I%b in rr, 0 cli r PIP cj C310 11-4 o ME 0 rr. -4 C*b 0 @f- Z -C 0 "CZ znm -4 C.); 0 kin o 0 0 n 0 rr 0 U, o- ;D bo rn. !, 0 m o"ii'l -0 m n r Z 0 0101010 0@0 C -4 40 CA m m om ;o ni a C) 0 a ClIc m z rM -d rta w tp. Nit') W hi N 0 m ep Cb Ln! a, if-- AS -JiWl.tl@ b- Ol kr, LA fir S., t" Fin ru 1.0 ell kA low k, -d M P'. w aj 6- N Ln -@j Uu -4 iii,,.j N to nin C3 -iiA N %0 Ol N %a lLn Co -41 M. tr 41. 0." nifol- %A n Cl 0 0 .A C@ 4D, 4ili"' 0 N 41, 4- N 0- -1 (A N N M co V co v 010 cD co IN co -P, a 4'. 1 w Oki 0 n a W1,40 *.lw a -4 m & tX 14()- CO -Q -4 ctj4siN Ol ON L" %A 0 %o U" n W@ C) Co LBT m -4 Z M. m 0 m > m 2-1; C= m im 6!6 C) or z I .0 T- x:c -c m M jco 7 U) po. K; iLn a 0:0 rm n m;;o -X' T 71 T b.. -M, iLp ioC 1c) Ici lc!n -4 -x L#I:- t. n irn: b- M, 0.0 C oC 0:0 0 m uIr c) iz 0 o in @10:n 0 12w M Coll ip- C2 0 M Z -"4 Z:I* z < iN 16P io IkA!C) 7. z z n m ;C tr-o An io'c aC C 0 rr. on 10 m 0 .0 n noo a m ca In, f- )> l;o In W %0 i V1 b.- Ul @4 Nj W f@j V% -'t@ len 2. %0 W & b-4 M a. C.PQ I- W n 0@ 10, LQ Ln 0 n '0 '0 'n %ffi m ID c rr. W ;Ln eo. ee, r*sm kys @n @m LA n kil W fka M, I- 4@ 0 & N 01-41 cP1 uj CD 01 4, N 4@ 00 m Nj 63 @N N N'1-- W N it. NJ P1 b. .4 An n n km M @c w -P Clow C %.n 01 '0 0, a @a M 0, -J 1,4 -4 W -4 --@j %.n %.r !%A -4 %M m -j 11M .4 0 in!n 0- cm 0, 10, 1w io, 05 m 0, CD jto 8ST n rr X Cr 7 Z rr c I., I'll r"I ci rl, M r' r: r@, -> T -.' . i- r- r) c c: - I.- r@ kx, C: %x < m 2-. 'Z C. -< -it aw 7 w V, c ;rl 7 el." C-, N: Uli C U- C C C. IT; b 7. 7--@r 2, r- r; W, --4 C, -4 @. --i :k! r, - - - - 4 4 ; - -4. r- 0@ C'. ;r., r-, -r, w -,. %. ..=' -r 'r 'L. v c- o c- cl Cj C-@ V. 1- 1. -r -. > *C@. n I'l, -0 C'. Ca Z, ci C. C; C', Vi ni V. r rN z! r- C c C. C: C, -4 r V 2" c , ZL C m -C z < 2@ C- I-- N Lr c. v@ c- C. x 2-- Z @o V, C- Ar C C.- C, C C M r, C-, Y@ C, ZL. C% c- (I C- c- C, C'Cl C: rr 0 C- C, r- c C, c C: C; 0 c C C. C, c C, v a; -4 IT N) - -.4 V, cy) r, 1. L: e7r, ?@j -.i N: %C -.j N kr r%: %r, 27 C- X; C- w III, C, 4.. N .91 %rl %n Vi Cl) ell, n m Cn a. 1P. P. U. C? 0 X X, -4 4- 1.-- UO N.i-- U. tv CO N; k.: L, rl 11 --1 w M. C.- L., c-, L,@ V. t.-i r C; I-- -P- 6,,, v. u., L@ U: -n rn rn m rn %r- Ln W 41 P, rv r, C- I.- r Cl) A -X, " rn w x co C-1 c-, r*. 0, ol w 41 ip N kil 41 n C, C@ Cl, -L- m tx: I.- Lr > Z, C, --4 N 41 Q %:Q vi Law C, c C-1 01 k-- I- N I.J., c W 0 tu.' I- I.- N 1- 1.- 1- 1-, N L-,' L@; -P, C@ 4- %C -P@ Ll 4, W -w c c 0 U. N, 0' Ul C, rr W C@ b" K, W, I-- C -.4 Cl. C C- cj 4, V W %r V C. IX, rn V, L@ V Q. u, J. 4, C.. V. w -1 U. C, V 41 u tv, 0- c C', 0 cx %r Lr cy@ M m rr X z cl, -4 v o-, %r C, co C 0 C 1-- 0, C, %C r. L6 tp. N; Z, ?-- w w ul K@ V LT 4, m C. N -4 W Ln 4% V Ln N M u.: N, I- N) w LL) m In it) -@j W 4, n e,@ r@ I& kr er. 4- e@, Ln kh LTI IT. k % Lr -tl Ln Ll Vi ..I Jr. tu n. (ij -4 In W rz -.j .i W -Q 69T T cl X -4 n r-I F1 P- An r) rr- 1: V :7 n- c r-, C., rr: C., rT, r, rr -A rr r,, r. r,@ r) c tz a -1 ID 2. Z< C 7 -r cf@ C n., nN)krc %Poo or.rC -4 C.- , -4- 'r rr 7' Ir. lb. x Un C> C -0 0 Q I.- b@ cl, rr V C C 0 a C C C-, k.@, __4 -.4 3: V r. C; C, b. c. Z,. r m In N, n C", c C, 2: C@ -4 r,., V@ 1 0 r N vi z I- Z z 0- N, ul 0 V C, C, 2@ c-, rT-, -i n rr: rr, C, X. 0-0 rn r- c -0 0 --1 em OCCOCCO C a- X m C, C;@ 0 C, C 0 C@ T fT, cn rv > m LA -C !:Cm rn fr. t- 01. r- e), VU, a. U% n L" i o N w Y. CJ, w m cl, a C, C) N, -4 -j & rr: z z f- V C_ > bl@ C. V-n N" V C,, 6- A, %rl @C, n 0 C.. f, I- C-, C- m rn m C. -C C@ -F, rr CD C, N' 01 N, Ln V. 0 C% n --j Ul n 41 n P; rT r, CA rn > rn X M -n C, U'. 1-- 0- c,-- 'r C, Cj C', r, LP C@ M or., r!: C) M rn rn rn r, 41 N LO 1- 1-1 t-4 r..., rl. 71 n m N V: Z 4X, 0, -4 W -4 c c c 1.- 0 -4 v -C@ t'; cc -4 r-I C7 ar p- C7 0 V@ N 41 N N 41 (J. 41 w N U; C, c C. -4 cc Ol C, c c C@ N 4- cc T LO L: v till 1.- 0* Cc C@ -4 w Ir Ol C, C, N. I-- K@ LO Ln 0- vs 4, 41 U C?, Ur ul V_r, 41 Lr 41 -4 N V, V, o -4 IL C, V. (X C 0 -j C7 %C, U, m 1- N c-% %C z V, %0 V., V- c, C c c W ur c r, U- 0 0 C- LO -4 C' U, C, c C- C- c V. cl, v N Ln kil cc W rr t, W %r 7r M N) N N, flo N, PO to N 4 1 to 41M o- c-, L'i Cl LL. %,7 tl 06T "n v r, n rr. w- (A Z Z rr c I'- N L) 0 C) m C... r. > 7k: Z w M -4 n. r C- r- c- 7. V; C un v -.4 -e C: V, C: :x, -,c ('m rr C- 7",.% :r :r I-, C, C, C, c 0 c n: v C C', V -1 2 0 c C, C-, ,V. X r-, Mr V@ I.- r- c r C 2: C. rv Vi z r c- 7-- occooc'n C rr. c .0 C, C c 0 m z cn rr. X, > < tA --4 m, Lr cr 1-,) -4 C, co 41 to w Ml C@, 4M, P.- r". b) %V C) C-1 C, -.1 N %b cr, N %0 z z 0 C'. -n 0 'r M -i pll@ i-- c' rr; rn U, 4, o n C) -4 Un Ol C, U; C@ -j cp co cl, L, s W -.j Ci rr rl-, 7- w M, z < r- 1@ -4 - m C- I.,- C'@ kn 'r aj -Q 41 4 U, C-1 N PI-I c I; - M e- C cr 4- %n m n In n .01 K) ol cr, -7 N, U, rn -i I.- CL 0, cc %C I.- V Lo M rn N V: L, u, 4,x: rL; N U., 41 C; C, 4- -4 %C w Cl. V, C-1 C-7 M, co 0 U., -4 W z- @-n r@- cw C, 0 C- C C-I@ cr@ Vi I-- C -C, r. N z 4, C, rv I.- m 7 < C rri -4 C. ro Lu N a, 0: 1> ;10 :r 0 7. rr, 3: X C, rk; -4 W 0, C T6T -f 1: CA 7 2-, m C 0-:14J. n n 0 v X rr' rl@ rr- Irnm n 0 Cn z N %.n O;Ar- <.-a -4 -4 31t Z Cl n t%J L" @C) ,%.n @n ct ..C:3 m'C lb. i-4 I 'r 'b. Z kn 0 a 0 n,n;o MiE, Cl: n m L4 rn M 0 Inc E n.0!c L" 1--4 ri nr N n n 0 O'n -4 -4 -4 1.1 X > 12. fr. k^ 10 1 1 1 1 ;1 It m z -4m Ln -0 < M M LA v a 0;:c C) C) tn rn M C) 010 C3 0 Clio C 0.0 0 0 a 0: -4 M: P- U! 0-11 rn x z IT 0 rn m 2% 0- li'm v a O@ ul N k) Lill L.) 01 0 N3 -J. I-- ftj > z m w CA. L" -4 (n -j th 0. M n e,3 a n n CD -4 m *a N A, N L"U., W t@ w Ln LA CP, CD N %f@ 1-- 41- > rm 410, O-W N w 4, W!P- b- -4 m N w 1,A 0 O'40i.P. IN Cl Ln -4 M17 .7 1C) twn -4 CID ul (Y. 0, OD CID OdU"141 -4 21. N Ca -J:%n Ill'- 41 0 4m 0 0 0 CCID In INN) Z6T ....4 rm -0 rr, 0 n io. 10 m "Ma n to C);n e @cn Ln -n u J-4 -4 0 io 0 n lb. m tA > -1 w rn :3 0--jz X m LA C> CA m X m w 2> W m (A kA 0 w K3 N W 0 hi co 1- %0 r%) CD 0 0 a 0 C5 1.-@ Z- L" rn m m EA < NJ b.. P" b- I-- P" rn J, ol %0 CA 0 In w C) N hi kh NJ w kn Ln W n co %A 41 %Cj 0 -4 i Mn LA n C) 0 m I- @P- P- kA @0, b. lcn PD P, in -.4 c I: x r-I 7 X N c 0 c -r 7, r-. . . . . . . . 71@ kP, C C C) C, C C' 57, -r rr, c C-@ 0 n 6 C-- n %.r --I r". 77 C@ C'! C C, C: C'. rl C- V. C U, , C, C C; Vt C V C@ C; C c c- c c c, c n C,, C, c c 0 0 r C- C@ c c- cl C@ v.- 21 0.- P- LYI IT n I- -i CY, CY, C-, n C-1 Cl. n fl- m N r. -91 z C30 M kil Ol un w r@@ ri c,. n e- n to Ln Ai 0- X, 1- W ILI U@ to -4 cr- C:@ Un r) V@ U@ kl@ u@ C-1 C-1 0 C@ C@ C-, C@ rr C-1 to 0 C) C- Ol C@ N) rrl 4, c Cl 0 C, C.) C) -i v cr. --j Lp -t@ Ol &1 4, w, w %0 z (7. c C, kr ki N, ci v m '1> U- w C, z Cl r) C-) Ki -J aP rT; NJ Ln w .91 4. 01 w W Lp (d rmn 1.- 0 CO to r@ C.n n @j 41 JS .. @6T X . I 1 0 . t -1 rn r 0 z 7 m c 0.- N3 C C) 71 n rr. --i M. C M r- Cl Z n %X. < -0 -4 -A, V. C: %,@ @r n 0 N Ln C, tn c r.) c- r@ C , r@ M -i --i -i -@m rr v r"I f7. en - It C. - .,.: 'rx u, . %T. C@ n in C, C- >1 r_ n x, 'r N c-, r, n 0 0 C) C C,, b@ M V; o cn r- 0 rl --i tp V, " 7 r, < C: N* Vi C'. U., c o X rr. 4@ 0 Lr, C V, r- C C, C C C) 0 G-) c c 171 C; 0 C, r- c C cl, c (- Cj CA 0 . rr. CA m;o X m rr 0" PQ 21 .Ll .01 %o IV J% o, rI.;, W %.o C) C) 00 0 K) a W, Z, %0 m FE m C) > > I'd V ts! W C?, kp .0 01 CC Ln U, m m 41 ol 4@ -t- Lp n Lo C-> -4 1-- m CA rr tn >= 41(7 c X M 0 o N ty L41 N m -n M. w m m C7 -C m 0 %n Ln N) j W W 0 a C-) -j v en Ll V m < C) U) tr, -4 0 41 V %r Cl-, Z m kg 0 -4 N C- 0 W Lr. %c -4 z I.- M Pu m C-1 0 %0 a, ol ol N W 0 0 2: z b. rm L X1. K) Cl 0, W C; C G ru 4% -J, n@ n C) NI tic t%) W V. m Ol 4- C) W G6T X m 'I. V. 7.r Zm C r', C. rn c- r r. r- rn o r- .71 N U Vn<T; C-@ V C,@f Ci-!C rn T T. -r. i> 7@ r- C-? c r7d c C- CD C', C,C r- > r, "t, -F @c.. c. c, c-@, ce; n@ 7@ 1> r' V - I I I I I > (.--- 2- --1 (-. %-I- c fll@ k.;, CJ U. cc V C:. k:@ C@ C_@ CC@ C_ n 1> C, C- C-7 C, c C-1 c C, > C. C-l C, c C--n 0C: z C Cl C, CC C'0 ;2L -@4 M rr.X > z C, rrl C-) C, 'r @-eT 'r M 3: > ri e-I f- C-) c@ r, r, 0, c_- -r, C) @C; %rlM C, f- -i @j c, no C:, c.:p C-) %X,m I-- CL M -4 C31 m -q A vi m m < C7 (A m w ui N C, ul K, ur, Lu Lp Un x W: f- rre LW N L, r-, 1@- u NW Cl) m 10 r) -j I ul e-) thl C!:> nc n -i P- Lp Cl en M @7 M --i 77 ;a f7i uj N C, c Ix rQ 0 0 0 0 rv 4' -4 M O@z C- m r" LT, C, V, 0 v -4 V, OD 41 t-i m V, 41 c 0 0 n C: -4 ft Ml C) C 0 c C) U: %0 -1 0% t> cl )> M 7 0- Ln ff: JxX %D %C %r C. 0- 0 -4 @r -.4 0 0 U. -@j n C) P- rn U*1 0-- r% II.- ro M10 Ol 10 CD KI P I%A 0 4n cl 0 C) -n I im 961 lo! "V -4 X "Irlinix 0 (/),!(1 M., x WIZ m a iN C, 0 .>i IZ 10*1 < ' 4 IV; IT C-1010. x rol-C rr. U:0@0!0 XL x C@ c j -:;c lo:N un 0 vl,o!o [0 @M C rb -11"i--C-4@;v rr m po r r Sixic !X %.n 0!0:01010;0! 1-4iX -n m P-1-11 .0 ID 0 o 0 W-4 !Oirn@vl r-f o. >;= N 0 0.0; M@W '00 r, Ik: --cc) 0 "g-' < 0 N'-p Ic I -:A ;ie o 4";%D 4%;%D m G) I>." 70 m rn 0 2 @o AQ %Q 'a w M -A) %0 m vi MIME rn n m _q m n vi co N 0@10 -401,14% Woo 41 w W W OD 0-1 N V1 -41W -4 -4 N %0 0 0:0 -4 N %G 0% N %0 m C2 "a m ;u 0 N I-- N N P-d N 1- 1.4 x C- 0 Q N (7, -41 41 %D N < m m m 0 m -4 N N N N z 0 V, co 00 ur, co 000 -4%.AO%Q.N 41 C@ m 1> ;0.-q > > P-w o-@N t- 1-4 I-A P-i D- 0 6.4 rl w 01-4 -4 %0 OD w 0 0 0 0 %D.N W 0- 41 w 0 N r- m N W w 0% 0 W Go -4F w V1. C, %A -4 N 0 0 0 N Vi N 0- W W (A (A Cl >:Z m 4% 41 %il Ww N N 0 0 0- w -4 %0 an @D CD -4;o 0 G!Q CX) 41, %0 0 co %A 'n IQ m X 4- vi -1;- 4% 4@ v @A.C@ ul 0 w Go vl@*- m N C, Vi N %0 0% -4 (P I-- Lul kfl -P- 4% 4% N N 4- 4- 0 0. 0% 0 cio N -4 w 0 40 4* vi Mm W. V1 -P 0 4@1 W 16A -414,; .0 w 0 (311W 4-40 0 o!ol%o %M -4 0@ %0141. Ul rn ;Q:b- 0 0 1-- CID. m %'n -4 vi V) w 0 0 0 -4io w 1" 0 -4 M m Cl) 0 0 0 VW10 4101 ON 41 C@ 0 0: 0 ON OD 0 %J" rn In z I P-j cz: 0 0 O@N 0 0 %0 NA-do WNN w iujitj N W N jw@wj 0, r"), !NIRWI-4@ 00 :0 im n P-AA C-) Wztm@7'jaj .1 @ !. I @ $c mici c >;u rr,.,;ci ic z VI!O a I :x Ln; 'U!;L z Ix z.0 m @O .",C; 1 -1 -I.x ;m 140@00@01 )> ix !U.'O Z.@ 0 n m Q! M 10 in 0 z-L Q 0 0:C, Q 0 0 Jr .%c %0 @,Q 'D Q. in rr, > X m %Q%Q %D %Q.%O -4 m x %C z OVAD @Q m m ix (TI J> m w kn a b- 0.1 .01 0% U) 0 01 41 M -n C7 rn x X 4% 0-6 N N N s- X t- o -4 co < m m C') W N W N 'No lo- N-, 0 W'D z 0@ -4 N 01 %D VI 01 o m rn r X -4 P-W N N N o- 4.1.4 x rn %M -4 kn N 0001--;C'Wowp- %0 b-4 N V cl im Z W N N N W N N N N N N N W 4@lw N V -4 %P N N 00 -4 W N 4@ -4 M >lz m N W W N N N t- N N @-w I- to "n W ;0 0- 4 0 -4011%0 41.01.4 @A @J -4 %A W Nj In a 3 -4 m P" N Vn 01 -J rn 41 co @n w 0: m IUJ.N IN N 0 N w %A Un 41 N Ol 0 .0 0 OAA -4:-4 w P" UnVI 4%N %0 1- 4' N @D .4 4% 1410@-a W@ *CA N 0 w 17, 0 0 0 -4 -P W N 010 cy@ Im m C) q. @1- No CD 4@ so %n w OjO 0 -4j-4 %0 -4 010 -4 ;Z 1-4 1,n io 4, N Pw:N "i 10 it.- 14, it- iw %010@ %Jq@ INII-41NI1.01 0 0 0 I@m M %0; Ol't-;I-- @O @mi i 'ON Ic %Aio 86T -1 =-in nmri - n r (A 7 zp m C b- N 0 C3 C2 M 0 0 in V- m .7 0 0 n'o. 2 1-- N %A Z; LA le V -4 sr X c < X m C m m n 0 0 L"o 0 a m .7:x 7 n -4 -4 -4 --1 M rr X (A *r, m > v> m m QiO a 010.0 0 un -4 c rr. (A f- n .7 m t- In b- T lb. x Mo.* I CC) o rr. CA V@ F -4 C X C C@ fr. %r' z -4 N ln 0 Ln :9 z znm m a thlooo cc:) Im C) 210 Im ka. . 10 -6 0 0 m V* rn -4 :o ic);o n C3 C) V-d 0 C) 0 z C) X at m r- 00 Ln W 16" 1.- vu N W NJ, Lh Flo w "P@ u.I ell Co %n c. & co 000 cot" @jo-CD C5 z EA t" ty, Lo N K) 0. m N 40 .4 N $-A n n co @cp 0 @j 4" J, be 0 IT 0, A- co U W -ej 4% A- -4 -4 0 0 N 41 n w C3, 7 in cc;'r m ln!r-o- 13- IV .9. @rr, I,< ftj %b. w 6- !0. 7- Fn -4 CD -4 w 0 Un co .4 co %a 0 a %0 0- P-' co a, ol 0, ic co co co CD C@ n 66T 0 r, X n b-t,41nirr X. (r. 7. 7 m I-NCO 0 c-, r) > w, rr, m r.) C', 0 7. v. C) tp < '0 -z c r" cc: 17, ;z v c M 7: C, r", N@ V C. V. C) c@ 0 m C bp 7- 7* --7 M .7k, ry, " " I*. 4 @ . ;v r- M t:@ 71 kp n n c: no 0 -n Lr -.1 r C C, on b. T IT: C-) C) rr, (p I I C) 0 r- rr z --i X ;-_1 n rr w 71 c U-1 0 @Ip c c o 0 c C) 0 m c) i> @ -X > , m " -0 " @ " @ @ 0 w rr. G, r- Z cccccloc c -4 x ocCocco C rr rr, c cccr_ooc IV rr z c: m c- %A w W Lit 4- m w Aj ?N11 m o V. Ul m m N cl 0 0 C -i CD (r. In -j c rr. -n z 0 7 rr; z 0 C) M C@ 41 0 UJI 0@ vi C-) c- c-, kp c) -V IN, N 62 r, a W -4 on Cl %r. CON, N n 0 0 %0 01 Un un n n > 0 C, 7) U,- c) 41 1- G v 01 P- 01 > AD 4" rri -4 IN WUN W K: o- W.0- N z r C" 0 1-4 & n c, 0 (11 cn n'.0. L" IT CIO rv@ V UJI -4 U" 0 C C, -4 0, cu C C 0 .9, m C, 0 W a X f- 0- IN M. C 0 W -4 tp 01 N) LL) %In a@ %ill c 0 W-j 0 4N %X, Im M. Ul :c m 0 m Lu, --4 010: 0% -4 -j 0 0 0; ooz "n W- f"N @11. PIJ Ln e.1 c"Ill .6- I'm 0 k" C) liun < -4 ?ow in Ln Ln n lc@ jc@ m -4 -4 -4 m 1* T -r -b- 'M it-n to n C3 m m '0 i Ol a 0 :C:) tA -4 b. N a C3 C@ b, cI C) Ub ov -C @o kn :C@ tx C@ @o <-- c) Cl: cp 0 -4 m ;v Z > --4 IM C) M M Ln IL&I Ln N Z X% -A Z OD C- -4 M W L" lurl eft w n C@ C) 0 LA .4 (n C) rm 601- 0" In Z co C@ ct, noo co on 0, W CD M rl IM > 4, 4*- w w 0- A) 00 W C, -j Qn %D -j 10@ km 00 16 %a co m L" .4 41 in C3, N & en iK) rn in rn C 1-4 TOZ 2- Ix :lp m 0 10 i rr- U" ;m n rn im L.- -.4 pt z @c irn irn !.o C, X 0 'T @b. :;o %.n cn 0 0 0 bu- C- m ic> @o @c @o C) ic) kn --4 > I - -4 - I p C7 10 a C) > cn > EA @o @tn W %.n fia LA 00 W 0 -n n X rr 2 CZ < G") N 'o n N) @n -j U.) 0 m n in M.Cl) N W 0- Ln L" J, w Ln NJ U) 41 L-i W 4N LIJ > m c 3 CMD 0 0 n CD .10 CD. 0 N 4, hi 4, Cy, C) I- n 0 0@ m C) W -4 000annk."OW CD z In m < coo C 0 00000100 0 0 be m 000 cc DO 0 0000000 C3 r-i -j W I.- oobooww"LA ol & LA) La 4. o jw 4' lo 10 10 10 0.0 CD,W N tx) TABLE 112. CITY COMPLIANCE DIFFICULTIES WITHSTATE AND FEDERAL STANDARDS, N00 OF NO STATE AIR F60. AIR ST WAT ER FED WATER REPORTING PROBLEMS STANUAROS SIANDARDS STANCARDS STANDARCS (A) NO. A A NO* A hC, % A NO. % A NO, % A TOTALP ALL CITIES Sal 442 52- 117 11. 72_ .8 288 33 160 20 .POPULATION GROUP OVER 50.0000 10. 2 2C, 30 3 30 5 50 2 20 2501.000-500tooo .17 5 29 5 29 2 12 -7 41 .7 41 .100#000-250,000 22 42 11 21 12 23 14 27 14 27 501POOO-1009000 117 59 50 17 15, 11 9 41 35 21 18 509000@ 919 127 58 30 14 18 8 53 .24 41 19 Lo 20 tooo z5tooo 466 247 53 5.1_ Ll 26 6 168' 36 95 59000- lotooo c 'o' G, '0 0 0: o'' 0 0 0 :2000- 5tooo 0 0 0 0, 0: 0 0 0 0. 0'. 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 UNDER 2,1 500 GEOGRAPHIC REGION NORTHEAST 188 S4 50 33. 18 21. 11 60 32 39- 21 NORTH CENTRAL, 260 141. 54 28.. 1-1 17 .7 81 31 62 24 S C U T 1, 22Z Ill 50 24 11 12. 5 86 39 51 23 _wEST 211 116 55 32 15 22 10 61 29 28 13 METRO/CITY TYPE CENTRAL 170 71 42 30 18. 23 f14 65 38 42 25' SUBURBAN @450 21C 60 51 11. 33 7' 130 29 68 15 vid-EPENUENT. 261 121 46 36 14 16- 6 93 36 70 27 FCRM CF GUVERNMENY _MAYCR--@COUNCIL 211 Ill 53 33 16 24 IL 66 31 46 22 CGUNCIL-MANAGER, 622 323 52 76 12 47 8 212 34 126 20 CUMM ISSIGN 24 14 56 -3 13. .0 0 5 21 5 21 TOWN MEETING 19 11 56 4 21 0 0 5 2.6 2 11 -REP* TOWN MEETING .3 3 60 1 20 IL 20 0. 0 1, 20 TABLE 113.- COUNTY COMPLIANCE DIFFICULTIES WITH STATE AND FEDERAL STANDARDS NOo UF NO STATE AIR FEO AIR ST WATER FEO WATER REPORTING PROBLEMS STANCARDS STANDARDS STANCAROS STANCARDS (A) NO. I A NO. 2 A- NC. A NO. X A NO. % A TOTALt ALL COUNTIES 133 67 50 30 23 17- 13 52 39 34 26 Y-Cift-LATION GROUP CVER 5009000 23 9 39 7 3C 9 39 12' 52 - 9 39 '0-ul-900-500 00 23 8 35 9 39 3 13 11 48 9 39 looll. 00,0 46 25 54 10 22 4 9 17 .37 .11 24 Q-Q7:-l.Q-or-Q-o- 0 41 25 61 4 10 L 2 12 29 5 12@ 50,000 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _10-tou-0- 2-5-tooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000- 109000 0 G 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 a 0 2t5OC- 5-9000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 u E_ 2-1p 500 0 0 C a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GECCRAPHIC REGION NORTHEAST 30 15 5C 4 13 3 10 1.3 43 7 23 N'C _R_ TH --C---E-N T R A L 33 18 55 6 48 2 6 12 36 a 21, SOUTH Al 2?_ 54 10 24 6 15 16 39 12 29 --WEST 2-9 12 41 34 .6 21 11 38 7 24. ME!-RO STATUS -METRO 97 48 49 24 2@5 16 16 39 40 31 NQN METRO 36 19 53 6 17 1 3 13 36 FCRtJ EF GOVERNMENT -WITHOUT ADMINISTRATOR 33 20 61 5 15 1 3 10 30 7 21 WI-Th. ADMINISTRATOR 61 29 46 16 26 13 21 25 41 17 28 -.UNKNCWN 39 18 46 .9 23 3 8 17 44 10 26 TABLE 114 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY CITIES IN RELATIONS WITH STATES Overlap- Conflictng Unreasonab Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Uncertanty Number Re- Number ping or Unreal le Enforce Loc Prtcpa Communi- Technical & Delay Pro Inadequate sponding Reporting Programs Standards mnt Measur Tn Pol-Mak cation Assistance gram Admin Funding (A) TFT-TTAT -No-7778 -No--TTBT -No-- T TB7 R-5. %(B)@ No. %(B) No. %(B) No. %(B) No. %(B) Total, All Cities 1115 746 67 159 21 257 34 151 20 254 34 233 31 1199 27 275 37 358 48 Population Group Over 5-00,000 10 9 90 3 33 1 11 2 22 2 22 2 22 1 11 3 33 3 33 250,000-500,000 18 15 83 3 20 6 40 3 20 5 33 4 27 '5 33 5 33 9 60 100,000-250,000 61 47 77 10 21 13 28 9 19 16 34 12 26 17 36 22 47 25 53 50,000-100,000 142 112 79 22 20 40 36 21 19 45 40 47 42 25 22 41 37 49 44 25,000- 50,000 282 186 66 40 20 55 30 35 19 59 32 62 33 47 25 60 32 91 49 10,000-.25,000 602 377 63 71 19 142 38 81 21 127 34 106 28 104 28 144 38 181 48 Geographic Region Northeast 252 161 64 30 19 56 35 42 26 49 30 40 2 62 61 38 5 39 89 55 North Central 327 211 65 44 21 81 38 48 23 68 32 77 36 52 25 75 36 108 51 South 274 186 68 40 22 58 31 31 "1 T 69 37 49 26 42 23 62 33 82 44 West 262 188 12 45 24 62 3j' 30 16 68 36 67 36 43 23 77 41 79 42 Metro/City Type Central 195 147 75 34 23 45 31 38 26 50 34 46 51 45 31 61 W 77 52 Suburban 592 37o 62 76 21 140 38 71 19 142 38 127 34 97 26 142 38 171 46 Independent 318 229 70 49 21 72 31 42 18 -62 27 60 26 57 25 72 31 110 48 Form of Government Mayor-Council 279 177 63 37 21 54 31 38 21 51 29 49 28 41 23 67 38 103 58 Council-Manager 769 528 69 j16 22 190 36 101 19 192 36 174 33 141 27 196 37 234 44 Other 67 41 61 6 15 13 32 12 29 11 27 10 24 17 41 12 29 21 51 TABLE 115 PROBLEMS-ENCOUNTERED BY CITIES IN RELATIONS WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES Overlap- Conflicting Unreasonab- Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Uncertanty ping Or Unreal le';Enforce- Loc Prtcpa Commun I Technical & Dely Pro- Inadequate Re ortin Programs Standards ment Measur tn Pol-Mak cation Assistance_ gram Admin Funding (A@ No. %(A) No. %(A) No. %(A) No. %(A) No. %(A) No_. %(A) No. %(A) No. %(A) Total, All Cities 746 166 22 222 30 91 12 204 27 225 30 155 21 3o6 4 1 361 48 Population Group Over 500,000 9 2 22 1 11 1 11 4 44 2 22 @O 0 6 67 3 33 250,000-500,000 15 5 33 9 60 4 27 5 33 6 40 6 40 8 54 10 67 100,000"250,000 47 12 26 17 36 10 21 14 30 15 32 12 26 27 57 26 55 50,000-100,000 112 25 22 31 28 13 12 38 34 38 34 23 21 42 38 47 42 25,000- 50,000 186 32 17 51 27 22 12 48 26 58 31 36 19 69 37 82 44 10,000- 25,000 377 90 24 113 30 41 11 95 25 166 28 78 21 154 41 193 51 Geographic Region C) Northeast 161 30 19 38 24 17 11 43 27 38 24 41 25 58 36 87 54 f-n North Central 211 40 19 77 36 28 13 58 27 62 29 41 19 91 43 116 55 South 186 50 27 63 34 29 16 57 31 66 35 38 20 88 47 88 47 West 188 46 24 44 23 17 9 46 24 59 31 35 19 69 37 70 37 Metro/City Type Central 147 37 25 50 34 20 14 42 29 45 31 34 23 72 49 77 52 Suburban 370 70 19 98 26 40 11 109 29 109 29 71 19 136 37 159 43 Independent 229 59 26 74 32 31 14 53 23 71 31 50 22 98 43 125 55 Form of Government Mayor-Council 177 36 20 58 33 14 50 28 45 25 42 24 76 43 113 64 Council-Manager 528 122 23 157 30 64 12 147 28 170 32 102 19 z) 6 4 1 232 44 Other 41 8 20 7 17 3 7 7 17 10 24 1) 27 j4 34 16 39 TABLE 116 SUMMARY CITY COMPLAINTS Problem with Problem with Problem with Total State & Fed- State Government Federal Government Problem with eral Govern- State or Problem ments ONLY TOTAL ONLY TOTAL Fed. Gov't. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Cols. I (Cols. I & 4) (Cols. I & 2 & 4) N %* N %* N %* N %* N %* N %* Financing - Inadequate 271 24 87 8 358 32 90 8 *361 32 448 4o Administration - Uncertainty, Delay 193 17 82 7 275 25 113 10 306 27 388 35 Standards - Conflicting or Unrealistic 123 11 134 12 257 23 99 9 222 20 356 32 Communication - Inadequate 154 14 79 7 233 21 71 6 225 20 3A 27 Policy Making - Inadequate Local Participation 161 14 93 8 254 23 43 4 204 297 27 Technical Assistance - Inade- quate 116 10 83 7 199 18 39 3 155 14 238 21 Programs - Overlapping 114. 10 45 4 159 14 52 5 166 15 211 19 Enforcement Measures Un- reasonable 50 4 101 9 151' 41 4 91 8 192 17 *Percentages based on total number of respondents (N=1115) TABLE 117 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY COUNTIES IN RELATIONS WITH STATES Overlap- Conflicting-Unreasonab Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Uncertanty Number ping or Unreal le Enforce Loc Prtcpa Communi- Technical & Dely Pro Inadequate Reporting Programs Standards Mnt Measur Tn!Pol-Mak cation AggigtannA Grm Admin Funding kA) No. __TM No. %(A) No. %(A) No. %(A) No. %(A) No. %(A) N U.- 7 -(A) No. %(A) Total, All Counties 105 26 25 35 33 19 18 36 34 36 34 29 28 36 34 48 46 Population Group Over 500,000 22 7 32 8 36 5 23 8 36 9 41 5 23 10 45 11 50 250,000-500,000 17 5 29 8 47 3 18 4 24 8 47 3 18 9 53 8 47 100,000-250,000 35 7 20 10 29 6 17 9 26 10 29 12 34 9 26 15 43 50,000-100,000 31 7 23 9 29 5 16 15 48 9 29 9 29 8 26 14 45 Geographic Region Northeast 24 5 21 9 38 5 21 10 42 11 46 8 33 9 38 11 46 North Central 27 6 22 9 33 6 22 7 26 9 33 6 22 10 37 9 33 South 29 9 31 9 31 7 24 10 35 9 31 10 35' 8 28 13 45 West 25 6 24 8 32 1 4 9 36 7 28 0 0 9 36 15 60 Metro Status Metro 74 18 24 25 34 15 20 22 30 27 36 20 27 27 36 33 45 Non Metro 31 8 26 io 32 4 1.3 14 45 9 29 9 29 9 29 @15 8 Form of Government Without Administrator 28 6 21 9 32 4 I@ 10, 36 11 39 9 32 8 29 10 36 With Administra.tor 50 17 34 21 42 11 22 19 38 18 36 13 26 20 40 29 58 Unknown 27 3 11 5 19 4 15 7 26 7 26 7 26 8 30 0 33 TABLE 118 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY COUNTIES IN RELATIONS WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES Overlap- Conflictng Unreasonab Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Uncertanty Number ping or Unreal le Enforce Loc Prtcpa Communi- Technical & Dely Pro Inadequate Reporting Programs Standards Mnt Measur Tn Pol-Mak cation Assistance grm Admin Funding No. %(A) - - -7 (A) No`7777 -N-o7-%7-A7 -No7-%7A7 No. %(A) No7--%TA No. %(A) No. T FAF Total, All Counties 105 24 23 26 25 12 11 34 32 42 4o 27 26 37 35 54 51 Population Group Over 500,000 22 9 41 5 23 5 23 8 36 10 45 7 32 13 59 13 59 250,000-500,000 17 5 29 5 29 1 6 5 29 7 41 3 18 10 59 8 47 100,000-250,000 35 6 17 10 29 4 11 8 23 12 3@ 7 20 8 23- 18 51 50,000-100,000 31 4 13 6 19 2 6 13 42 13 42 10 32 6 19 15 48 Geographic Region Northeast 24 7 29 7 29 3 13 9 38 12 50 9 38 12 50 14 58 North Central 27 7 26 8 30 2 7 10 37 14 52 5 19 6 22 12 44 South 29 7 24 5 17 6 21 8 28 11 38 7 24 10 35 15 52 C) West 25 3 12 6 24 1 4 7 28 5 20 6 24 9 36 13 52 co Metro Status Metro 74 21 28 19 26 11 15 22 30 31 42 18 24 33 45 41- 55 Non Metro 31 3 10 7 23 1 3 12 39 11 35 9 29 4 13 13 42 Form of Government Without Administrator 28 7 25 8 29 3 11 12 43 15 54 10 36 8 29 14 50 With Administrator 50 15 30 14 28 7 14 14 28 17 34 13 26 22 44 27 54 Unknown 27 2 7 4 15 2 7 8 30 10 37 4 15 7 15 13 48 r- r.-.@C7", TC; r-) k C.V-r, -4 -r@ ZE -xc-C VC;r r. rl,LV C. C- rT: 1@ r -r@ . . . . . . . 7 kr, C, C; C. -n n m x@ ri C-, C', C. CC', %.r nb. r" cC-r C,c z r, V %I IC. r- < 2-4 n rl. U, r -i - N@ C, kr. C ww uivc- c, C',cC.; cl. fT C,, >rl f"', nI- r, rr. C, C, C,C C,0cID r C, C, C,c0 0C, Zf V, x z C@ fl, N-, P, N; N; N,nL, k.wC -.4 C@ t,m c1c, cr, r, cr. r- M rr, 2 CL -c: tr -n 61 Li m Ir. C) 4@ r- C- 4, vi 0, n C, n rl 4- 1-- LCW 41 r- r,@ - r@ pl; W n -4 CD L9 V@ 41 C; C, f, cGCL cc C, In r) r", c C C: C7n v 2, 7z 0 W -P, c@ cIr w Ir w U: Go r) Ln 'n .k. x- C@ N1 n -j c@. cr en Cl C-1 cl, Li rl V. rN, cr C', rn C, 10 10 Ol cl:M--j C, 1:V N v, -r m 0- rr C- U-. --j 0- ul C, ul C C C L- N@ 4, tx N, @r, C'. C- ;a V@ tQ LIJ L" U, t@@ L, L, U., k.-- tlv Ll@ 41 -P, r@N w C. C@ -4 -4 V'D U, CD Cl c 41 C.C c C, V M r., X m > L@ -4 1.- C.V cl, -4 C, -4 rl)wC Cr C_ L@ L@ w 7 z > uj L, 41 L. 41w 4- t- N m -4 W. 0 C@ 0 L, rl -.1 acl V rn -4 Nt Cc a W, Ln aIn .4 -1 Ir a C) r Z.0cc 0 C- 01 C. M 41 r,@ N; wL,, .j (1 0" cl, 0, - -j V) > -4 VD V N Ic Ll cr- C- 41Nc 0 C, C,c fn CA -n rr w KI < kr@ r@ L" In w Cl. W C, Ul cr, aIt X, r@ C-, n C, K@ fl, ex U@ fl) M, U. C@ I, kr, %p %-n 41 21 10 - - - C- -n ;r Lh kl) N) ZW K3 t. C, c W@11 @ - , .I. cr. Ln (r, mC, r, 'r,0 C. r) 0 1@ 41 41 W rr 7, 4, 3> -.i In wm 0 no uNC,0 C, 0U; "I rl -P,0 1:- 21 rrm C-) C) (/@ cl, Ol aacr U-I Lr v 4, ri@ M fr. W A.0, r@n 04,m X, CA 7. M, %.r, N, rQ w N N ro m N r,NU: P..@ rl NNJ 7 -4 In Ir. co -4 al In @n -4 0 0r -t, n er, @l> C@ -e C. .t 0 @r, 0 va K, C, rT P.- .Z. C X, X. V-1 f-C lb C. CL OTZ f.- z n, r@ C., r" n. C, C r, %ji <'" %P r@ ui c*, c:. ct tr c: 11 (I rl It r. :r: M U. 0 C, 0 C, C, 1.; 1. 1- > C n, 11 @ I c C, C. C@ C-1 cl, 0 k1l -4 I- , CC-, 'I ci C@ r@ e-@ r@ r) C.", X I I I I c -4 C rl; V@ C-1 U, c C, c; v c L, c c. Cl c M. c-, C, c C, C- c C-@ C, C@ C, C c 0 C: z r- r- C L) r, C', T rr w 21 w N 0 Ln C C, Ln C, z rr z z C2 > (A 4m C K) - ell r, -n. @j %A 0 rl, n C7, 1.- 41 C) r- 'n aA > - -4 C") w LO rl@ NI& w J, w w Ol In cc 0. V. r, 0 0 c 0 C@ 10 N, ;l a, m ; ;;! z z C-1 C, c > C- N @j D CO CO C C C 0 kn -.J a X C-, n 0 Pi N 0- N. F, tv N 0@ N cn N: L" n m LO el In w coooo@-Vw r. Cl) r, m m M -4 LO V, m t7l 0 W cc, 'r, (r, P- c ocr-oocloc ell m 7-1 V 0-. 41 N 0 t@ -D 10 ol co 00 41,01- > m -4 -.4 (A 0. m ;C.) rr, r- X 1@ 41 W tr 10 -4 c c 0 Zt-tl w rr X ;c -n w w c c c 0 U, Cr. Lq N V, m n z 6 z > w 41 w N w w N > m L" 0 41 w W 0 W 000CONW010, 2 m af cl 0 m C 0 -i ol m -i cy, 01 -4 -J 01 C@ (,@ c C, N 0 01 ol (), N 41 > rn z r- c -0 rr. rl; J, N) w e@ N N L%@ L'@ k" fl@ In 0 to 'n FD C, n r> e%i r) - n 'n n rl MM aK, 'M CA -0 Z V. m 0, C, Lr ol cc ul 0@ j 0) 0 c -4 C, w w 0 Q In nnomomnujo J. C z > r 0 > X ni CD j 0 10 @j In n n 0 n C n W CD j krl 3: M z 6@ NJ t1i N, W N N Z C -4 4, -1 kA a" rN-. cc rl@ 7 --4 7 > 0 m m cri C-1 n (A I- I.- N Lo M rr, r1l n. 0- 4. @NMM nnnooLn-j(7-i Lq 7 (A :1 N) N P@ IN) ru N N P- N P@ N N N 0 ;o 41 4-00 w N N, cr@ lb w oocloc-441ww N > C) r) IN- P.- %D P, Iwo P- C, C, Q C: P.- C- V. N IN W ul@ Table 121 TYPES OF ENVIRONMENT-RELATED TRAINING NEEDED FOR CITY MANAGEMENT STAFF Number Reporting General Envir Stan- Environment Training Environ- dards & En- Impact Liquid Solid Need ment forcement- Statements Waste Waste .,Water (A) No. %(A) No. %(A) No. %(A) No. %(A). No. %(A) No. %(A) -Total, All Cities 972 674 69 686 71-- 547. 56 216-.22 276 28 168 17 Population Group Over 500,0.00' 7 6 86 5 71, 5 71 2 29 3 43 2 29 250,000-500,000 18 67 67 12 67 4 7- 39 4 22 100,000-2502000- 56 32 57 40 71 38 68 16 29 15 27 13 23 50,000-100,000 114 90 67 92 69 86 64 27 20 31 23 18 13 25,000- 50,,000 243 174 72 169 70 130 53 49 '20 65. 27 38 16 10,000- 25,000 514 360 70 368 72 276 54 118 23 155 30 93 18 Geographic Region Northeast 206 138 67 152 74. 116 56 52 15 69 33 35 17 North Central 294 214 73 199 68- 155 53 63 21 .80 27 44 15 South 238 166 70 168- 71 136 57 71 28 76 30 57 23 West 234 156 67 167 '71. 14.o-. 6o 30 13 51 22 32 14 Metro/City Type Central 176 119 68 121 69 113 64 44 25 51 29 40 23 Suburban 517 358 69 366 71 279 54 98 19 139 27 77 15 Independent 279 197 71 199 71 155 56 74 27 86 31 51 18 Form of Government Mayor-Council 232 151 65 68 114 49 58 25 78 34 46 20 Council-Manager 690 487 71 497 72 407 59 140 20 177 26 110 16 Commission 25 22 88 18 72 12 48 9 36 12 48 8 32 Town Meeting 18 9 50 10 56 8 44 8 44 8 44 4 22 Rep. Town Meeting 7 5 71 4 57 6 86 1 14 1 14 0 0 TABLE 122 TYPES OF ENVIRONMENT-RELATED TRAINING NEEDED FOR COUNTY MANAGEMENT STAFF Number Reporting General Envir Stan- Environmnt Training Environ- dards &.En- Impact Liquid Solid Need ment forcement Statements Waste Waste Water (A) No.%(A) No %(A) No X.(A) No %(A) W-M) _N_o_TW Total, All Counties 139 97 70 83 60 76 55 44 32 - 64 46 48 35 Population Group Over 500,000 22 11 50 15 68 15 68 7 32 8 36 8 36 250,000-500,000 23 16 70 15 65 14 61 11 48 12 52 9- 39 100,000-250,000 45 32 71 25 56 24 53 14 31 21 47 16 36 49 38 78 28, 5.7 23 47 12 24 23 47 15 31 Geographic Region Northeast 31 23 74 16 52 17 55 10 32 16 52 10 32 North Central 38 26 68 19 50 20 53 15 40 21 55 11 29 South 39 29 74 29 74 23 59 12 31 18 46 18 46. West 31 19 61 19 61 16 52 7 23, 9 29 9 29 -Metro Status Metro 95 63 66 60 63 56 59 31 33 43 45 35 37 Non Metro 44 34 77 23 52- 2o 45 13 30 21 48 13 30 Form of Government Without Administrator 39 31 80 21 54 20 51 15 38 24 62 15 38 With Administrator 60 37 62 39 65 34 57 18 30 24 40 20 33 Unknown 40 29 73 23 58 22 55 11 28 16 4o 13 33 x C) 7D C- -9 r) C-1 rl@ :F v 7 rrl c C' (7-, rTl M m t@ 7 crr -In < m -C C- x co L/I cQ n- c r, ry . . . . . . 7, r- r- T7. '1* 'r. kylC CCCC' C' >r) M. M CC-, C: C; cl C, C, v--q CU, r- zr r I C@ 'T rr, C- I fc!"M; V, c-, r- .7 C: -4 -7- C- < Qt C, U: C@C r, m 7-1 c7UC., t,% C, C% M r: 1-1 ;k- -C 'r. rr, .. . . . . M G@ r C@ CC, (-.@ 0 C'. :@ - Cc- (" C C, C-CC: z cccCccr- 'D rr C; V; z V C W k@ N N uj P@ fl- tr r) 2- L, fl@ c r-I Cr' Wa. t"S 0. rl; t,- C@ K; 0@ CL c w 0rl z Z>XM 0 z rr Z No 4 3. 2-1 C". kr. Lp. tr C@ lt.) t" P'; e@ %.. K, C) w Ll Lp 4- 4, tn N; on0 4.ww-4 %M to n':>;u 'r rl ri ft, r@ N@ r, N.w rr NNLr' N 7 cr N m i-- cc w L, Cl 41 LI., t@ rl -C@ m an Ir n (A M rn C) r! z cxN r, ul N U: rQ .1 N n10 41 ul cr I.- cr m N 0Cl. -4 ;n Aw r- (I rT' 7.1 > Nrv @ i-I C, :0 N a,. m C) C, '0 41 cC, CD @j w In n m Wa,c 6- 4, v 4, Cl C C, C: 0li 141 1.- C, -4 rl 41 Ol 0C 7r cli .Ll C- A@ LU fr X, %P CO Ln C, C 0 No C, %P .4 -4 m N c -4 . cr m cr C@m Ic ar. CC -4 CD In I'D IL -.4M fr uM @j mOl -t' L' 'D 0 0 cl, Ir -4& kr' ft LW Ol 4": a. %P 41 CA rm AU U) N Li -4 ulNCC V.Qa, U40%00 3p LM 4, Nw 4. Oww 00 Ir N N NJ ul@ rl@ -W 'm v0'm vi b" $-IvI- kc rm A' (W @r 0 .01 n n n I.- %." m wQ%AW Cc .j 0 Ct en Q @n -4 It, M M ff m or., cc %M %0 Cl,m er fr. Pli tr w krl cr N- M 17, Q -9), ew JS c 0 :r (A Ut 0- rv W 4, K) co 63>0 m %r -W -o & tn .1 J, @j N. b- @- tyl 0-1N Itp r- LP to W, A, Ar -j @n In 'a tr one A- n 0a C1-- .4 AR rr c .4 m co -A 14 c- M Ol .A. CD -4 Cr, M CD 0-4 V W er C C@ m w N: 0- In Onc@ocooc 10 ir ro t- 41 1-- C7 > M, at Ol LP j w w 41 ell > @ Mj 0, n -4 -w CD cr, P. .4 & -W j Q a cm 0 Cl -W m.4 w tx %0 co 4@ coo &N0, M'D 0 b. cC, rl A, v 60 4-.0 ki 0 c 0 -A a. 0- C'@ C'I. p. r@ C', r-. ri -4 r, F@0 rM i: rl, U C, :7 V, rl: L2@ C -%T C C! r-C :r -4 7-1 7: klt r: C, C- C. C .0 V, I- C.. L" 1-1 C-1 C." ( C- C. U@ -4 r, 1, 71- C.; C., C. C: r@ C', C.- - C, C-@ r7 :71 C'. V c-, tj C: IA c Ic. cC', r@ C. C, C-, C 00 c C., C@ C- C. r, C,c t, A, X, W tr Lt, f,@ N kil %P V Lr- C LT. Wl (3, to L'@ 0 tr 0 tr LM Ur to Ir. 0 to r@ Lp. r, X, -i C. C- C. -4 Cl cr 7 Ln -z ryl w -i C@ ko c Il) In Vn 177) rr. rQ -1N fQ Lo k,@ LI-I Cr, @n N, N@ 4,W 0 0 C, C@ .i Llm rl Vtc 4- I'l U, C W @L c 0 0 c c c N cl -i X, L9 rl fl- 4, 41 01 C, Irl C, 41 C. a: 1> w W.01 I-Im 4- L@ N- rlj cr C, al N) 0 C; C, -4 - C I (X M -4 10 -1 cl M. -,I cca ME e, n c Ol tr -t C, -j m, m z Lo 41, 41 U, L, 0, c tA --j V, 64;. R-. C', U, LW P, 10 c c C C, cl, C, 'r C, Ol C) z V. rr w 21 N; m w 1" 41 K) -j m CC M m -4 r?r @j %.n (r. C. X, > .9- tr. t, .91 Ir. J,W ll@ FIJI %rl. kil r. C-. n c. -4 .1 er co In m ty, 41 1- C, 0 cl, a C- V m co kr. rl@ kn Nj n 41 t-w M ;0 (7, (T cr. -4 c to 41 cm CL .41 41 > 0, fl- -C@ It, C-* C- k.A U, %C f,@ 0, c 4 c; c- rr 2 V, 7ri C, Kc CD f-- rT: Ei @-t r, r-, c- c-, _4 CL: 7-, r-, r- co 7" 7V, 7, 1-11 C, C"; C.CCC 7k -n r,>t@ -0 C, C., C, E: C:C r, ,II- -Y@ 7r C-, C ,C', 1-1 C-1 rC-, b@ r. C, t. r, VI 0 r" 1-1 iC@vCc a: :_o 2, -4 vC." l-7c rr C, 'C' :) @,, 'C' C-rC. c .C. C-CC cC@ccccc r- C', x C, kN, --4 n N, e-I Z, 0: 11. kr. nK UQn L,0 rc %r- Lna Ll r@ C-- Ln t" C, C- r, r,N&C- CD Ln z ly ll L, kl LI M, mr. fl,1 .71 CY 11; 1, U; r, P-- lr P@, rll@ V@ n n C, V,wC, r-, t, m rn rn -j -J V. er., rn _4 41, C, ri C, C', -4 -.j 0, UlV I-- t@: C, CC- r, u@N Ni r@N41 r" r, kr U, Cc C, c-, cr Lr, 'r, C., 'n I rn ;a J --t rn > C; r0u r c4 m a@ M MIL or: C, C, .1; C, Lr -4 --1 @j -4 43, C, C, C@ el. Ir- mV@m 0, LT;w C: C,00@,nc co rn. co 'o -4 v-4bU., 0.- V U: 0:. U V- .9.o Ls 0- C, wC', P,c CA CPI C., U, 'n f7 C,N c C. C, In K. IrC X, 0- 41 t. Ic Lr 0@ cc U;o --A C@ wNJ v wm0 c C, a r- -.4 t@ C, 1- 4, K r 0, sx. 0, unv C,VC@m01 4@ 01 fl; 0 M v4, Cl, C: N%Cm 0 C, r_ N-PIN0uc (D I> 7. c CA 4- 0, LU 4, cc I> m fl, -1 W C", t,m X, .lm CY, mm k- LA NI N, J., W ru 1-- 41 tr U, CL 0 to ft5 -4 c-- m C, C, 41 @rl C, -1 nct > er. W rr z c z N; 4, - @j (- @ km Mo A,W 0 %n LU (r. c C") 0 C) P. -i mIn V 0 Mu > EA r- tv Z, f@ Pj Uj W P.; @ to L- t,I 'r "r KI ey; zi en Lr c cw fl. 01 '4 rJ rr 0 Lr a Ca, In w LW0 co m co V, C, 0, 9TZ 1" -1 r r, c-@ c, Nm V I- U. c C, w c- 1@ T r. T I c C, c C. c C-1 1@ V@ C C C: 'j, C', r-. C c- 7E, z > c C- o @r n z r. C- C- c C. C@ C. c L C- r, r.c 9 C, r c ;e x z M I,% X, j I, V@ tj@ IV N! C: Cr, I.! IT c-, r rl C7 U@ I' C@ C@ IV rn N C, %n In n n n n e), cc v 41 L, r- 71 V-1 CD C) v C, n 0 C, C, In V -i rl r1l V X, c@ C n c- n C, v N; > 7c (71 m IV, w fl, w In IT C, 41 m Irl m CA m LO tl U@ U@' -4 P@ U: fl@ w r- V Ic 41 Ic Ic c @O Ic 0 0 c 0 c c I,- LO c- m -J -4 -4 -4 a ,j r4 Ol z, -i C@ OQ @.n -4 -4 Ol OCC C 0 Q, V. C, (P m C2 Im rr L@ C %r In Oll N: -j rl-, C' 0 0 C' cl a, u@ Jl 7 N kyi .91 41 X, U; ul W r, Cl 4, C-1 al w C@ C, -4@1 0 c c 0 N Ol > N) N: rj L. r" U, -4 LO c a c 0 0 a, Lo LP 41 @r- X, U7 w S, C, o 4, X, ki: b 41 r1i 10 cr -P, C@ L, C, cy 0 010 -1@1 G@ Ol rl I- -j r, In Ir. Irl -1 In V. w w X, to cl w Lu 1. ?@ W t" M N 10 In 0 n rl n m C?l 0 %A C@ > 7- C) x rr, 71 m .7 Lr %x -j n 0 t@ C) Ci 1@ r@ t@ r@ L@ -0 X a, (A W 1, 1" N Lo Lp N N W LY, N C. -i C) C*l 0 n k@ r@ L" N) > C7 --4 to x alp rTl NIMI -410, kn In a 0 0 c 0 N 1.- 41 @O cr- APPENDIX 3 RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL PART OF SURVEY* Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Atomic Energy Commission; regulatory and nonregulatory Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce Department of Defense. Council on Environmental Quality (Chairman) Environmental Protection Agency (11); regional offices Federal Power Commission General Services Administration Department of Health, Education.and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development (11); regional offices Department of Interior,(13); bureaus Tennessee Valley Authority Department of Transportation Department of Treasury Total: 49@ *Questionnaires were mailed to federal agency offices for receiving and coordinating comments upon environmental impact statements except where noted. 217 SECTION I I I FIELD STUDIES IN LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT A. Field Studies in Local Environmental Management Introduction During the last few years, local governments on their own ini@lative, in response to citizen pressure, or in keeping with state and fedeea *I regulations have paid increasing attention to environmental problems. The diversity of'their response has resulted in a myriad of new legis- lation, re-organization plans, and programs all aimed at better manage- ment of the environment. This deluge of actlons,.Iacking any.systematic, evaluation, has left government officials uncertain regarding what actions local governments have taken to manage.the environment; what organizational changes have been made;' what programs have been adopted; and how effective have they been. The survey on local environmental management, as*summarized in the preceding chapter, does provide a national perspective through a statistical analysis of local governments utilizing a particular organizational structure or environmental program. However, since the number of local governments using any particular innovation is quite low, generally around 20 percent, local government of- ficials need more in-depth information on the various organizational approaches and environmental programs presently being utilized. This part focuses on two aspects of local environmental management: organizational changes.related to environmental problems and programmatic actions aimed at improving environmental quality. The purposes here are: --to identify innovations in local environmental management --to describe and analyze the var ious organizational and pro- grammatic actions taken-by local governments for improving environmental quality --to develop some general guidelines for program development in which potential problems andimprovements are outlined Before getting into this part, a word of caution is in order. Each local government has its,own unique set of environmental problems and operating context. Therefore, an organizational and programmatic action should not be adopted without consideration of the local environ- mental problems and some modification for the local context. The remainder of this chapter is divided into four parts: a discussion- of data collection methods, an analysis of organizationa-I changes designed to deal with environmental problems,.an analysis of environmental programs presently used by local governments, and a general conclusion. 218 INVESTIGATIVE DESIGN In areas such as environmental management, where there is limited experience to guide the actions of others, researchers have found intensive study of selected examples to be particularly useful for stimulating new insights and for suggesting alternative courses of action. A clear distinction needs to be made between what is labelled the case study approach and the analysis of examples which was the approach for the field studies. The heuristic quality of the latter approach is stressed since the analysis is aimed at stimulating insights, In addition, while the case study focuses on records of a particlar agency or organization, the analysis of examples deals with an intense study of selected instances in which the phenomenon is an interesting and innovative example. This method not only involves the examination of records, but it also involves unstructured interviews and observations. In this project, the examples analyzed are selected local governments which have developed and are implementing innovative organizational, and programmatic actions for managing the environment. The analysis of examples provides a more comprehensive and accurate picture of environmental programs. The primary source of data is four field studies conducted during the spring, 1973. In selecting local governments with innovative environ- mental management programs, the following criteria were utilized: --more than one well, developed environmental program (i.e., environmental quality standards, environmental impact assessment, environmental planning, etc.) --adopted organizational changes to deal with environmental problems (i.e., citizen advisory boards, "mini" EPA, adminis- trative committees, intergovernmental agreements, etc.) --geographical representation with local governments from the east, midwest, south and west --representation of various sizes and types of local governments --cooperative attitudes of local government officials --representation of different types of environment problems (.i.e., water, air, solid waste, wastewater, noise, etc.) --one regional effort --project budget limitations After reviewing the environmental programs in numerous cities and after consultation with their staffs, the following local governments were visited by research teams: --Dallas, Texas --Inglewood, California --Miamisburg, Ohio --Piedmont Triad (Greensboro-Winston Salem area), North Carolina 219 In order to aid the reader In understanding the research and to provide overall focal points for the analysis of the four field studies, a brief research design Is presented. The analysis is on'two levels: (1) an overview of local programs for managing the environment, and- (2) an'in-depth analysis of specific environmental management strategies. The basic research questions are: --What, is considered In the term "environment"7 --What is environmental management? --What environmental programs have been developed and implemented by local governments7 --What s-timulated the action by local government in the environ- ment7 --How effective have the environmental programs been In improving the quality of the environment? --What problems have local governments had In their environmental programs? --What organization changes have taken place 'in local governments as a result of environmental consideratIons7 --What suggestions can'be made for future local environmental management programs7 Although these questions provide a broad focus, the investigators need a list of variables and related research questions on which they can concentrate their attention (see Appendix D). Seven basic variables were used: (1) the general condition of the environment (living and Ohysical), (2) the attitudes and opinions of the community toward the environment, (3) the political and legal context of the local government, (4) the environmental policies, (5) the administrative organization for environ- mental affairs, (6) strategies foe environmental management, and (7) the intergovernmental relations in environmental management-.' This list is not designed to be totally comprehensive since there were unique features for each field study. However, each investigative team included all variables in their investigation.@ When'the research teams were pressed for time, the emphasis was placed on the-analysis of the environmental management strategy and its viability. The field studies were conducted by research,teams. Each team was composed of one project staff person", who served 'as head of the resea-rch team; a member of the Environmental Management Advisory Board*: and@ a member of the ICMA staff. The project staff person had the responsibility of collecting all material and writing up the results. *Environmental Management Advisory Board consists of Douglas Ayres, City Manager, Inglewood, California; Ri-chard Gray,City Manager,'- Norman, Oklahoma; Bert Johnson, County Manager, Arlington, Virginia; and John Laney, City Manager, Miamisburg, Ohio. 220 FIELD STUDY CONDUCT Each of the research teams followed the same procedures in conducting its investigation.. First, in order to have.a successful field study, the research team1members prepared themselves by becoming familiar w1th Information about the local gov'ern'ment and Its environmental programs. The groundwork helped In establishing friendly relat-lonships with the local government officials which facilitated the free flow of information. The relationship was established as far ahead as possible, at least one month ahead of the vis'It. This entailed the project staff inter- viewing by phone the chief administrator In order that problems could be worked,out ahead of time, inierview.schedules established, and Information gathered. Each team member had the responsibility for famillariz'Lng himself/he,rself. with the organization and documents forwarded to him, particularly administrative reports, legislation, newspaper articles and budgets. In addition, a tentat-ive Interview schedule was prepared by the project staff and distributed ahead of time. Second, a meeting of the research team was held the evening before the field study was tocommence. In some cases, it was advantageous to Invite the local administrator.or his representative to part of the meeting so any preliminary questions could be resolved early. At that time the team would follow this prescribed agenda: --get acquainted -T,identification of tasks of tasks --review of background mater.ial with a brief session by project staff -'-iden tification of critical variables --finalization of interview schedule --clarification of field study goals --development of questions,for interviews ThAs' meeting was critical to,the success ofthe project. The investi gative plan developed at this meeting was continually re-evaluated and revised as the field study.progressed. Third, the next two days were used for conducting the field study. The data for the field study were collected primarily through interviews, although members of the research teams.did attend some meetings as observers. However, the procedures varied in each field study from informal interviews to a formal presentation by.the local chief, executive and his staff; one meeting included a tour of a local waste- water treatment plant. Since not every official within the.community could be interviewed, the research teams did attempt to interview an individual from each of the following categories: --local politician,ei.ther mayor or city counci IMan --chief administrator and,h.is staff 221 --members of citizens' advisory board. --newsmaqfrom@the local paper --planning department --environmental staff --public,works department --representa .tives from the business community (Chamber of Commerce) --county and regional governmental officials After the field study was completed,,the research team would meet briefly to review their work., At-this time, materials would be,collated and the write-up discussed. Each team member prepared a summary-,,of his/her views and ideas generated from the field visit. Fourth, after collecting the material from theresearch team, th,@.project staff member wa Is responsible for writing up the case study. Emphasis. was placed oni'iden'tifying unique programs and evaluating their effective- ness in promoting environmental quality. In addition, 'problems were" identified and possible solutions suggested. A draft study was written and sent to research team members and local government officials involved in the field visit for review and comment. When the comments were received, a final field study report was prepared. The final reports for Dallas, Inglewood, Miamisburg and Piedmont Triad can be found in the following sections. Since some organizational changes and environmental programs were not covered during the four field studies, additional data was used later to fill in the knowledge gaps. The primary source of this supplemental information was the materials returned with the survey questionnaire. A second source was materials collected in conjunctionwith the National Conference for Managing the Environment. Many local officials who participated provided meaningful examples of innovations in local environmental management. Finally, the International City Management Association has compiled an extensive file.on local government programs based on materials sent to the Association by its members. Like any other research strategy, not all social researchers agree with the use of examples. The fact that these investigations are taking place after many events have occurred upsets "puri Ists" in social research. They claim that the investigations lack scientific credibility since there is no manipulation of variables. Because of the possibility of criticism, research teams kept in mind the following potential weaknesses in order to minimize them: --The investigators had to avoid wandering into other interesting features which were totally irrelevant to the example being analyzed. The focus on local environmental management was emphasized even though the local government had undertaken other interesting programs. --There was a general lack of precision with which the situation was being viewed. The investigator had to avoid letting his own prejudices and values bias his observations. 222 --Casual relations and inferences were avo,ided. The investigators tried to avoid drawing the conclusion that because'certain events preceded governmental action that these events caused govern- mental action. For example, occurrence of an envi,ronmental crisis may or may not have caused the developmen t of environmental programs. These programs'may have been considered and action taken before the crisis.' It should be- stressed again that the analysis of examples leads to insights.ahd suggestions for. future actions and should not be co.nstrued as a test or generalization of effectiveness. Each case has its own unique features and special characteristics which make it atypical. Although these cases have yielded mu.ch fruitful information, there are S king risk 'in ma any generalizations based entirely on the analysis of four examples. The remainder of this chapter integrates and analyzes the findings of these fou'r fleld studies.. 223 B. Local Organization for Environmental Management There are three aspects of org6'nizing for environmental management: (1) local internal organizational structure; (2) structure for citizen participation; and (3) intergovernmental structures and arrangements. With the rapid expansion of environmental concern and activity at the local government level, traditional organizational arrangements may not prove to be adequate. A traditional internal organization for dealing with environmental concerns would include several distinct departments and divisions based on function, such as refuse, water, sewage treat- ment, and land use planning, with no one place where all environmentally relevant functions are brought together for coordination or integration. The local organization pattern for citizen participation is similarly diffuse, in that opportunities for continuing involvement traditionally have been in the form of-board and commission activity. Environ- mental concerns may be fragmented between several citizen boards, e.g., planning commission, beautification committee, parks and recreation board, and therefore no focus exists for citizen concern about the environment. Because of the regional nature of many environmental problems, area- wide solutions or efforts are often needed. Unfortunately, in most areas there is no accepted regional organizational structure within which to address these problems. Local governments are increasingly forced to seek solutions through regional systems, although many of the existing regional systems are not well developed. As a result of perceived inadequacies in the three areas, some local administrators have taken steps to organize themselves more effectively to implement environmental programs. In responding to the organizat.ion- al dilemma, local managers consider the following factors: (1) political pressures from environmental groups, business interests, civic groups, and other interested citizens; (2) legal.requirements, particularly state laws governing the actions of local governments, (3) personalities in the organization; (4) financial abilities of the local government, including tax limitations, and, (5) staff capabilities, particularly their skills in environmental management. To illustrate the organizational approaches utilized by local govern- ments, examples are drawn from the four case studies relating to internal organization, citizen boards and commissions, and intergovern- mental relations. Other examples are used w.here appropriate. INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE As mentioned above, under the traditional structure of local governments, environmental functions usually are dispersed through several departments and agencies (see Figure 1). Such traditional structures 224 PEOPLE OF PHOENIX CITY OF PHOt .NIX, --ARIZON A ORGAK,IZATION CHART CITY COUNCIL AYOR AND 6 COUNCILMEN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS- :A,e,onauttcs Board ef-himan Relations Building and Housing Commission CITY COURT Safe!y Board LEAP Commission .Cilizen Bond Ad1iSo1Y .1-,b,aq Board e,idin .g judge Comm,; Pa,k, Board Board Phoen, I *Civil Service , % ouma@ms : Commission on Housing Prpsprvation Commission CITY MANAGER Environmental Quality qPIannrng COMML5510o Commission eYouth Commission ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER LAW ()EPT. PERSONNEL DEPT. City Attorney Dire, to, -n HUMAN RESOURCES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS ANAGEMENT SERVICES AND TRANSPORTAT ION IT Deputy City Manager DPPLJIY City kiiinager Deputy City .1 Deputy City Manager HUMAN RELATIONS DEPT. BUILDING AND HOUSING POLICE DEPT. ENGINEERING DEPT. BUDGET AND RESEARCH SAFETY DEPT. DEPT. Director Director Police Chief City Lng,riec, Director LEAP DEPT. AVIATION DEPT. WATER AND SEWERS STREET MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION DEPT. DEPT. SYSTEMS DEPT. Director Di,ector Director Director Director LIBRARY DEPT, PLANNING DEPT. SANITATION DEPT. FINANCE DEPT. Director Director Director Director TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MAINTENANCE SERVICES REAL ESTATE AND PUBLIC HOUSING DEPT. DEPT. DEPT. GENERAL SERVICES DEPT. Director City Traffic Ergineer Director Director PARKS AND RECREATION FIRE DEPT. PHOENIX CIVIC PLAZA DEPI. DEPT. Director Fire Chier Director here are a mummer of advisory boards required by statute or ordinance which are not shown on this chart. have led to problems of coordination between departments in several other areas in addition to the environment. However, the environmental area is perhaps more sensitive to this problem because of its interrelated nature. For example, the disposal of solid waste through incineration may in turn cause an air pollution problem. There is a need, therefore, to achieve collaboration between people engaged in environmental activities throughout all departments and levels. Generally, this means the development of specialized staff. Depending upon the needs of the local government, and the role created for the staff, the responses may ran-ge from a single individual assigned environmental duties on a part or full time basis to a department with 21,000 employees as in New York City's Environmental Protection Agency. There are two primary questloh-s for organizing environmental manage- ment: 1. Which program areas are to be coordinated, e.g., air pollution control, water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste collection and disposal, parks and recreation, flood control, noise control? 2. Which functions are to be coordinated, e.g., data collection and analysis, program development, planning, operation, contact with other governmental units, response to citizens Inquiries? In the following sections of this chapter, three approaches to providing specialized staff are examined: (1) expansion of the functions of an existing agency; (2) creation of a new agency solely with environmental functions; or (3) formation of a staff committee or task force. Expansion of an Existing Agency to Include Environmental Functions Instead of creating a totally new environmental agency, a number of municipalities have expanded the responsibilities of existing depart- ments. In 1970, Inglewood, Califorpia established an Environmental Standards Division (ESD) which was originally placed in the Building Department, although reporting directly to the City Manager. Subsequently, a second reorganization placed the Environmental Standards Division in the Planning and Development Department. The rationale behind its creation was: --the manager wanted environmental considerations to become institu- tionalized in departmental decision making, as opposed to having responsibility for the environmental considerations reside in a single department --because of the diffused environmental concern,,cooperative instead of adversary relationships could more easily,be created between departments --the placement of ESD in the Planning and Development Department should assure the environment being considered early in decision making processes 226 --the Planning and Development Department had many ski'lls needed in environmental protection, and the crea ,tion of a separate department would result: in considerable pver.lapping of functions and skills @.@--a !new environmentM department would face the problems of-any new,department particul,arly in establishing relation's with other departments --theimanag6r's approach for acquiring environmental expertise was to train'existing staff with current staff in the.Plainning and Deve1bpment Department having, the proper'mixture"of economic reall"iies and environmental necess'ities' --the City of Inglewood is small enough for the environmental function not to overwhelm*the Planning and Development Department- Today, the Environmental Standard Division has the primary responsibili- ties for the environmental assessment process as well as monitoring and enforcing noise level standards. Other environmental programs, notably solid waste collection and water and sewer, remain in the traditional departments'. A similar situation exists in Dallas, Texas where the coordination function resides princ.ipally in the city manager's office, although an environmental plann-ing section in the Urban Design Division provides staffastista'nce. Other responsibilit'ies for environmental management are spread through several other departments, including: The Public Works Department, containing programs for solid waste collection and'disposal and recycling- Air Pollution Control Section of the Health Department with the responsibility for enforcingair quality regulations Water Quality Section of the Health Department,with responsibility for enforcing Water quality standards. Environmental Conservation Administration of the.Health Depart- ment Water Utilities Department, which operates a demonstration treatment plant aimed at,water reclamation,' -and conducts.. 'research 'in'cooperation'with Texas A and M Univers Iity on waste water treatment Attempts to accomplish a more comprehensive reorganization have been hampered by state laws which require air and water pollution control functions to be placed in the Health Department under the direction of a physician. Creation of Local Environmental Agency Other municipalities have created'separate organizational 6ht'ities for environmental management. These may take the form of either 'staff or line agencies. Although none of-the field study cities had created a sepa@ate agency, some brief examptes are given. 227 In 1968, New York City created a separate line agency containing bureaus for air, water and sanitation. This agency has a staff of over 21,000 employees and a current operating budget of .$500 million. The New York City EPA has equal status with other municipal departments with its primary role being that of an environmental advocate. Paul Zimmerman, First Deputy Administrator has pointed to two strengths for creation of a separate agency: (1) development of staff.expertise; and (2) long range view of environmental problems and matters of ecological per- spective.* Other advantages of.this approach'include: (1) consolidation of fragmented activities; (2) reduction of proliferation of boiirds and commissions; (3) increased public visibility of a new departmen:@.t; (4) increased accountability on environmentli matters; and (5) facilitation of administrative efficiencies. As an alternative to the newly created line environmental department, many municipalities have established a separate staff agency. Although the size and placement within the organization may vary, this staff agency generally has the responsibilities of research, program planning and development, program coordination, advise on environmentally related matters, and liaison with other governmental bodies and community groups. An example of this approach can be found in Fairfax County, Virginia. In a report to the Fairfax County executive, the line approach was rejected because "concern with environmental quality is not a function or actiy'Ity, but a dimension or aspect of nvany activities."+ A projection of the content of a line environmental department in Fairfax County can be seen in Figure 2. Reasons for not creating this department * included: (1) the department would be so large and contain sufficiently diverse elements as to be unmanageable; (2) personnel with environmental duties also have non-environmental responsibilities. Rather, a staff agency wa.s, recommended in order to: (1) provide an agency concerned with the overall environment; (2) serve as a focal point for citizens; (3) coordinate environmental programs, (4) maintain familiarity with environmental information; and, (5) provide a general, continuing review and evaluation of county policiesi programs and operations as they relate to the physical environment. *Speech by Paul Zimmerman at the National Conference on Managing the Environment, May 14, 1973. +Report on the need in the Fairfax County government for a governmental function charged with responsibility for those physical environmental affairs...July, 1972. 228 E)MIEIT HYPOTHETICAL ORGANIZATION CHART DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS CrOR, COUNTY SOLID WASTE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SEWER@SYSTEM DIVISION CONTROL DIVISION PROGRAM (Aj.1 Parts) Preparation of plans and Collection and treatment Collection of solid waste Preserve and improve program; provision of of sanitary sewage in In designated areas; the air resources of guidance; and coordination Fairfax County, except operation of Fairfax Fairfax County of County agencies con- that associated with septic County landfills. cerned with pollution con-, system trol. Provision of staff support to the Environ- mental Quality Advisory Council 2 personnel 322 personnel 135 personnel 8 personnel $36,000 $6,680,020 $2,678,238 $105,477 fm q1_4=cyn __ZarL.9L A92110 a -T Dx,,[email protected] or cautin zv r,.)Pm= = -atwa It fire and rawas ..... nt., Rescue C-inty Park men ft Services ,uthorLty Reduce or elim- Reduce f1boding Reduce threats inate the inate floodwater, and erosion. to citizen damaging effects erosion, and damage through health and y I @nvLronntll of soil erosion siltation prob- regulation . -welfare b and the resulting lems through land of land Me controlling Activities siltation of treatmont programs in flood,plain noise and dust county at reams and construction areas Assistance to Monitor quality Regulate the Monitor siltatJ of impoundment County residents in County MCI storage, erpsion, and structures regarding soil, streams and transpor- related problLu insecticides, tation of high- in parklands ar pesticides, at ly flammable or adjacent areas cetera otherwise dangerous substances CONTRIBUTIONS ONLY FORTMO VIRGINIA IRFAX COUNTY UPPER OCCOQUAN NORMTHERN VVIRGIN PA SEWER AUTHORITY REGIONAL ..fL AND WATER JENVIRONMENTAL QUALI PARK AUTHORITY """.ON DISTRI ADVISORY COUNCIL Collection, disposal Open space management Support soil conserve- Concern with all physical and treatment of sewage in regional parks tion practices environmental affairs in*the Occoquan in Fairfax County watershed $ (included in amount $ a $26,438 $ (included in that shown for County shown for Di.rector, sewer system) pollutlon Control Plans and Programs) aNote: No data is presented regarding the staffing and cost of these programs, because in each case the PersonrAl involved have other.duties and responsibilities as well. TOTAL AMOUNTS. 467 personnelb $ 9,326.173b DIRE POLLUrIO% PLANS AND Na . ri, f a,,, __.,.ty at', _y Div 151"'1 Stream Sampling bTotals do not include staffing or costs for programs indicated by "a". It should'be underecoods however, that'these programs would require significant amounts of'resources, were they assigned to the hypothetical department. 229 Administrative Committee A third approach for.achieving a more effective organization for environmental affairs i 's the creation of an administrative committee, task force, or administrative council. The City of Ann Arbor, Michigan created an Administrative Environmental Committee for the purposes of 0) overseeing environmental programs and other city operations which might have an effect on the environment, (2) setting standards, for environmental control, and (3) investigating and reporting at.the request of Council or Administrator on environmental issues related to city services. The committee., WhIch is-chaired by the Assistant City' Administrator for Environmental Engineering, is composed of the heads,of operating departments. Another variation,to the administrati.ve,committee has been the team management approach of Metropolitan Government-of,Nas.hville/Davidson County. With the aid of a Ford Foundation grant, the Environmental Planning and Management Proje ct started in July, 1972,-with the purpose of experimenting with the use of management teams for better environmental management. The manage *ment team,consists of five. i.ndividuals represent- ing the major environmental agencies of the Metro Government, the executive director of the Metro Planning Commission, the planning director of Metro Planning,-.the director of the Department of Health, director of Public Works, and the director of the Department of Law. In addition, a three member top management team for the project was created with a repres'entative of local, government (an assistant to the mayor)i chairman of the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce, and professor for the Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University.. These two groups coordinate the concerns, the ideas, and capabilities of local government, busine:ss, industry,'and citizens.. The teams have focus'ed on such issues as the meat packing pl.ants and their violation of the Waste Water Ordinance and completion of a hydrogeology and water quality analysis of a landfill. Although there seems to be some consensus on the need to establish some environmental unit to.serve a coordinating or integrat.ing function, the specific form adopted depends upon the unique needs of each local government. In sma'll cities it,may be possible for the chief.executive to fulfill this need. Examples of other local governments' organization for environmental management can be seen in Figure 2. BOUNDARY SPANNING PROCESSES FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Boundary spanning.processes encomoas s those activities and structures used by organizations to achieve'direct contact 'between governmental officials and clientele' groups and ind'ividuals. In the past, local governments have relied on voting in elections, public hearings, and open public meetings and citizen commisiions. However, recent environmental legislation at the federal level has stressed:the development of new mechanisms for securing citizen input. 'Two prominent examples of increased public participation result from the environmental impact statement process set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and from the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Some local governments have been reluctant to develop means for citizen input on environmental matters, claiming that: a. citizens lack the technical expertise and knowledge to deal with complex environmental problems; b. citizensl past experiences with boards and commissions have not proven to be very effective means for securing a broad sense of the community's position on issues; and c. significant citizen4riput may increase uncertainty within the organization which may result in a decrease in organizational effectiveness. In addition, where mechanisms for citizen input have been developed, many local governments have given them minimal power and authority a nd inadequate staff support. Yet, most municipalities have met with greater success and tangible benefits.from public participation. This section analyzes some of the popular mechanisms for citizen participation in environmental matters, notably citizen boards and commissions. In the past local boards concerned 'with environmental matters were quasiludicial boards involved in air - or water pollution control. Recently boards have broadened their per- spective of the environment. Examples follow of how these boards are organized, including expansion of existing boards, creation of new boards, and use of conservation commissions. Expansion of Existing Board Instead of creating a new environmental board or commission, existing boards and commissions in many cities have been modified to more effectively deal with environmental issues. The rationale behind the restruct@ring is as follows: 1. to avoid further proliferation of citizen boards in the local government. 2. to reduce the number of citizen@s' boards 3. to avoid possible overlapping of environmental related functions 4. to integrate environmental concerns with other functions of local governments. 231 FIGURE 2. EXAMPLES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ORGANIZATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Environmental Coordinator Addison, Illinois University.City, Missouri Manhattan Beach, California San Jose, California Environmental Planner Phoenix, Arizona Lakeland, Colorado Norman, Oklahoma Waco, Texas Environmental Section Austin, Texas Office of Environmental Resource Management Inglewood, California Environmental Standards Division Palo Alto, California Environmental Planning Office Montgomery County, Md. Environmental Planning Office Fairfax County, Virginia Office of Environmental Affairs Environmental Department New York City, N. Y. Environmental Protection Agency Huntington, N. Y. Environmental Protection Agency Simi Valley, California Environmental Services Department Chicago, Illinois Department of Environmental Control Washington, D. C. Department of Environmental Services San Diego County, Ca. Environmental Development Agency Los Angeles, California Environmental Quality Environmental Task Force or Committee Ann Arbor, Michigan Nashville/Davidson County, Tennessee Volusia County, Florida 232 In Guilford County, North Carolina', board members were appointed based on their expertise. In March, 1973, the County Commissioners created the Guilford County Advisory Board for Environmental Quality (GCABEQ) as a permanent board. Its purposes were: 1. to provide technical I nformation and supplemental advice to Guilford County Board 2. to aid governmental units to maintain and/or improve environ- mental conditions, and 3. to assure safe, healthful,, and, aesthetically pleasing surroundings for all inhabitants, present and-future. County board-m6mbees felt the@cou'rity lacked the internal expertise to handle many environmental problems, and therefore turned to the resources and expertise in the community. Fortunately, within the County are two colleges where some 'of the expertise could be found -- North Carolina A & T and the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. The members of the BEQ are appointed by the County Board of Commissioners for initial terms of 1, 9, or 3 years with succeeding appointments for 3 years. The BEQ is composed of one each of the following specialists: -- air resources, water resources, land resources, vascular plants, societal affairs, aesthetic concerns, urban technology or public health, legal affairs or economics, and public communications or education. In addition to the ten members, a Community Liaison was appointed for a one year term by the County Commission to act as a go-between with the BEQ and other community groups, particularly ones interested in environmental affairs. This_person disseminates information, encourages citizen groups to recognize arfd.use BEQ, and channels information from citizen groups to BEQ. The BEQ is iupported by one staff member of the Planning Department. Rather than creating a permanent board or commission, many local govern- ments have established env:ironmental,advisory committees for a specified length of time and a definite objective. Such advisory committees usually are charged to study environmental problems and make recommen- dations to the legislative body. The City of Dallas was the,only community in the field studies which utilized a temporary advisory committee. The newly elected Dallas Mayor, having based his campaign on law and order and the environ- ment, appointed a 3-man Council committee in July, 1971, to study the feasibility of creating a City Environmental Quality Board. He further suggested that it have approximately 8 members, including I high school and I college student, at lea 'st 2 from industry, and the remainder from the general public. On September, 1971, this committee reported its recommendations, in which it supported establishment of a 15-member committee whose membership would be drawn from those in the city with 233 useful knowledge and expertise e.g., Architects, Planners', Landscape Architects, Engineers, Medical Societies, Home Builders, Real Estate, Professionals, Industry, Environmental Organizations, League of Women Voters, A.A.U.W., High School Students, College Students. Their term of office was to cease on June 1, 1972 upon completion of their report. Their general objective was to develop a city-wide environmental-policy considering water quality, air quality, noise pollution, visual pollution, open space, land use, populationj and solid waste. In addition, the report identified the following tasks: 1. Assessment of environmental preservation action and improve- ments accomplished or in progress. 2. Identification of instances where environmental improvements can be made. 3. Inventory and documentation of community environmental problems, ranking them in order of severity of effects on residents. 4. Identification of needs for: a) research, experimentation and expanded special environmental projects; b) planning strategies; c) programs for public information 5.' Definition of an appropriate city role in the solution of environmental,problems.. 6. Submission of recommendations for new and additional ordinances and regulations for environmental improvements. 7. Development of recommended changes in,city procedures, programs,. or activities that contribute to our environmental. problem. 8. Suggestions as to means of creating'an awareness of environmental problems throughout the community, and lastly, 9. Identification of opportunities for community cooperation, inter-agency cooperation and intergovernmental cooperation in programs to improve theenvironment. On September 27, 1971,,,the City Council passed an ordinance virtually identical to the recommendation. :In January,1972, the Council passed a new ordinance repealing the earlier one', and making the following modifications: (1) a tenth taskwas added allowing the CEQB to bring in other related,matters which might aid the City Council; (2) a six month life span from date of swearing in; and, (3) an increase in membership.to seventeen. 234 Among the cities studied, the City of Inglewood purposely expanded existing boards to encompass environmental concerns. In August, 1971, in response to pol,itical considerations, a-desire to streamline -the appeals process and some environmental problems, the Planning'Com-, mission,.Board of Zoning Appealsi Board of Building Appeals, and Board of Fire Appeals were dissolved. Their functions were reconstituted into- a five-member Planning and Zoning Board and a five-member Construction Appeals.Board. The two.boards combined form the Community Environment Commission (CEC) wh.ich is mandated to meet.quarterly, or on the call of, the chairman which rotates quarterly between the two board chairmen. Figure 3. Organization of Environmental Board in Inglewood Community Environment Commission- Planning and Construction Zoning Board Appeals Board Each councilman and the Mayor names one member of each boa rd. No particular emphasis is placed upon their expertise or concern for the environment. However, city officials expect the CEC members to develop some deg @ee of environmenta] expertise. The primary funct-ion at the present time is taking appeals on local environmental impact statements. In another example the City of St. Petersburg abolished the Planning Commission and created in its place a new environmental board. Existing boards and commissions may automatically and unofficially expand their concerns to include the environment as it relates to their primary charge, e.g., zoning, in response to public interest. Creation of a New Environmental Board The creation of a new citizen board by local governments has been a popular approach for increasing citizen input. Two alternative types of membership are used, depending on the purpose of their creation. 1. general or "representative" citizen input providing a broad, view.of community val.ues on such issue.s as quality of life, physical and social environment, and 2. specialized technical expertise on env! ronmental problems to provide resources presently unavailable to the local government. None of the citizen boards in the field studies utilized a general membership advisory board on the environment. 235 With the assistance of three staff nfer6ers from.the Department of Planning and Urban Development, the CEQB distributed a questionnaire to city departments followed by oral testimony, survey of local environmental and community groups, and held two public hearings. Their report was not completed at the time of the preparation of this report. A similar approach has been taken by the City of Cincinnati,-Ohio where a Citizens' Environmental Task Force completed a year-long study of the city's environmental problems. The members of the Task Force were appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council based on their expertise in a specific environmental related-area. Their task was to investigate air, water, noise, land use, solid waste, and energy problems. The Task Force organized themselves into sub-committees which were in charge of the report for a specifict-area. They all held at least one hearing, submitted interim status reports, and distributed minutes of meetings. Additional examples of citizen environmental commissions can be found in Figure 4. Conservation Commission Another orga nizational approach for citizen participation, one used in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and New Jersey, is the conservati.on commission. The commissions are authorized in state enabling legislation.:and municipal ordinances for the general purposes of land acquisition, coordination and p'lanning for environmental protection. Examples of their activities include: --coordinating body working with-local,environmental groups to preserve the natural,environment --serving as a focal point for organizing environmental projects --acquiring property on approval of the.appropriate governing body, in the name of the municipality and administering use of that land. --conducting studles.and making recommendations. The important differences which separate conservation commissions and regular citizen boards are state sponsorship, eligibility for state funding, and ability to acquire land. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ARRANGEMENTS Where many env'ironmental problems transcend local political boundaries, regional or areawide solutions have received greate .r attention. Although there i's seldo'm,controversy over the desirability of addressing certain problems on a regional basis, controversy flourishes regarding how to structure regional approaches. 236 L G) FIGURE .4. .2 41 4j 41 4J - M (n 0 U M - - E E EXAMPLES OF LOCAL CITIZEN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONS* 41 4-a r- M - 0 0 W 41 1- S- 'i - ul :3 L- ::3 - - Temporary (T) L-0 'n r- U M > > Reporting City 0 :@ M 7; 0 - to 0 0) C C Permanent'(P Commissi on C.9 1:3c: 'n = :@- -A W an WUj Requirements Annapolis, Md. P Annapoli-s Environmental Commission + + -@ + + Not Specified Bethany, Okla. P Environmental Control Advisory Board . . . . Minutes of Meeting Duarte, Caltf. P Environmental Control and Civic + + Not Beautification Commission.. Specified Westland, Mi. P Environmental Quality Commission + + + Not Specified La Grange, t1l. P Environmental Quality Control Commission + Annual Austin, Texas P Citizens' Board of National Resources + . . . Not and Environmental Quality Specified Manhatten, Kansas P City Environmental Board . . . + + Annual Phoenix, Ariz. P Environmental Quality Commission + Not Specified Bowie, Md. P Commission for Environmental Quality + + Quarterly Edina, Minnesota P Environmental Quality Commission + Not Specified *Information obtained from the municipal ordinances establishing the commissions While regional systems to meet environmental needs are not new (Boston initiated a regional water system in 1889), they have not been prevalent until the last decade. The reasons for the upsurge in regional arrangements include: (1) more obvious benefits to local governments, such as cost savings and (2) new state and federal regulations and financial incentives. A variety of regional approaches have been developed, including intergovernmental agreements, regional planning commissions, councils of governments, special districts, functional planning bodies, consolidated city/county forms, metropolitan federations,.and compacts. The key factors influenci ng local participation in regional programs include: (1) Is it technically feasible? (2) What program functions (e.g., planning, financing, operations) get regionalized? (3) Who controls the regional system? (4) How much will it cost? (5) What level of service will it provide, and (6) How strong are the pressures to regionalize? For a regional program to be successful, each individual jurisdiction must perceive the benefits received, such as -lower unit costs to be greater than the costs the degree of control over local affairs relinquished. Four forms found in the c-ities studied will be discussed in the following text; namely intergovernmental agreements,- regional planning commissions, councils of governments, and special districts. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS Three examples of how agreements can be used in managing environmental programs are the Montgomery County (Ohio) Solid Waste Program, the Guilford County (North Carolina) Solid Waste Pulverization Program, and the air pollutlon control program of the Combined General Health District (Ohio). Montgomery County Solid Waste Program In 1970, most of Montgomery County, including Miamisburg, initiated a ,comprehensive solid waste program by agreement. Prior to the program's creation, improper landfill operations, a dwindling supply of land, and growing concern about ground water contamination from landfills were problems pressing for attention. At the same time the county began investigating the use of incineration, the City,of Dayton decided that'its own incinerator needed to be replaced. Subsequently, a consultant study for the Montgomery County Health Department made the recommendation that a countywide disposal system be established where. solid waste would be collected and transported via transfer stations to incinerators for disposal. It was further recommended that the incinera- tors be owned and operated by the county because of its greater borrowing power. The study proposed that two incinerators be constructed initially. 238 The system is presently operated by the County Sanitation Department, under service agreements with the local governments in the County. Generallyj the agreements cover all solid waste with the possible exception of some materials that are part of recycling programs. Seven. of thirteen municipalities in the County have formal contracts. The remaining six cities participate and pay on a fee basis. The cost per ton is the same. The agreements also provide for an Advisory Board to the.program made up of six members; one appointed by the County, one by the City of Dayton, one each by the Montgomery County Mayor's and the Manager's Associations, one by the Dayton area Chamber of Commerce, and one by the recognized association of refuse haulers. While the stated purpose ofthis group is to resolve problems, in practice there is some question as to its effectiveness., The original cost of refuse disposal at the incinerator was $3.50 per ton. Until recently haulers were charged $7.90 per ton. Now,- however, the rates have Increased dramatically to $12-50 per ton. Although'the county subsidizes the operation by 42 cents on every ton, 'rates may have to be increased.even more to meet the costs of new capital equipment required'to meet new air quality standards. This financial problem threatens the viability of this cooperative system. Guilford County Solid Waste Pulverization Program In 1972, Guilford County, the City of Greensboro, and,the City of High Point signed an agreement for a cooperative solid waste processing.and disposal-program. Two years before, Guilford County had recognized inadequacies in the solid waste programs within 'the county and proposed a Tri-Governmental Solid Waste Committee (TGSWC) to attack the.problem and develop a common solution. In December 1970, TGSWC was formed. Its membership represented the elected and administrative personnel from each of the jurisdictions. The staff immediately began to investigate individual problem areas. Sample weights of loaded municipal vehicleswere taken; estimated volume capacities and weight calculations were made on private collection vehicles; local areas of private service were better defined; differences in the two municipal policies and procedures were clarified; time and distance studies were made on all collection vehtcles; and the characteristics of local solid wastes were determined. For the first time, a clear picture of the total, countywide solid waste generation, collection, and disposal situation became available. After reviewing alternative means of disposal, the Committee decided to initiate a pulverization system. To finance the system, bonds for pulverization equipment were voted by the respective electorates, winning by better than 4 to 1. During the frequent meetings in July, August, and September, 1971, the staff prepared a detailed policy and procedures manual, which included the role and responsibility of each government. Also included in this 239 manual were estimated capital outlay per installation, estimated cost of operation, and proposed amortization schedule for each piece of equipment and structural component. Methods of disposal for special wastes not suitable for pulverization were investigated and included in the manual. A limited amount of resource recovery is also discussed in an addendum. When a proposed draft was submitted to the elected representatives of the TGSWC in November of 1971, it quickly became evident that a serious disagreement existed between the County and one of the municipalities as to the source of operating revenue. The municipality proposed that the operating expenses of all three stations be funded through County tax revenue. To facilitate this estimated annual need of $250,000, a Countywide tax in-crease would have been necessary. The County was unwilling to authorize this increase for several reasons, primarily because-of the disproportionate ratio between industrial generation of solid waste versus its real property value,and the fact-that many rural citizens in the outlying parts of the County were without collection service and therefore would be paying for a disposal operation whether they could utilize it or not. The problem was finally resolved in December, 1971, by deciding to weigh each collection vehicle as it delivered waste and bill its owner (be it public or private) at the end of the month on the basis of the actual cost per disposed ton times the actual tonnage delivered. A nominal fee also is charged to each private auto delivering domestic waste. Debt service on the capital facilities i's to be met by the County from revenues derived from a County sales tax. The Solid Waste Committee envisions a future consolidation of all installations under one agency (as originally proposed) as soon as Countywide collection is available. Such a collection program (probably a'rural container system) is presently in the formulative stages. When this single agency (probably the County) 'assumes responsibility for the operation of all three installa- tions, an annual disposal surcharge or fee will probably be levied to each home, business and industry (based on actual annual tonnage generated) in lieu of the monthly billing, to fund the year-to-year operations. The vehicles will then be weighed only for recordkeeping purposes. Combined General Health District In March 1971, the Montgomery County Combined General Health District was formed as agreements were reached with five counties and the City of Dayton for the expansion of the Montgomery County Health District air pollution program, to cover the entire five county area. Subsequently, the size of the Montgomery County Combined General Health District health board was expanded f.rom five to nine members (including five from Dayton). However, the county health districts and most of the larger cities retained their own health boards. Thus, each policy change made by the Combined Health District must receive approval from each of the city and health district boards. A few communities, e.g., Oakwood, have maintained their own staff. However, they still contract with the Combined General Health District for the air pollution control program. 240 Originally, Health Di5trict funding was principally derived from charges levied against member jurisdictions. This limited source of revenue permitted few extensive or new programs. The development of the success'ful air pollution control programs by the Montgomery County Combined Health District was dependent upon outside funding. The current budget provides for a:staff of approximately 30 and a total budget of approximately three-quarters of a million dollars. Compared to the levels recorded to date in the records of air pollution data compiled over the years, the level of pollution has decreased in virtually every category since the advent of the District. Compliance gene-rally has been achieved'without major litigation, although often hearings before-the board were necessary to confirm intent to enforce the standards. Perhaps one of the most innovative and . p unique efforts within the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency is an unusual combination of law enforcement and ecology that has resulted in an environmental. patrol program. The overall strategy of the program has been to teach policemen to become environmentalists. Experienced police officers with an interest in ecology are trained to deal with violations of the "environment." Wearing green uniforms with an ecology patch on one sleeve and a gun on one hip, the environmental'policemen patrol several neighboring counties watching out for flagrant environmental violations such as illegal dumping or potential health hazards such as rabid dogs. They issue citations similar to parking tickets that warn the abuser to correct the violation within five days or else appear in.court. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS The Miami Valley'Regi'onal Planning Commission (MVRPC) consists of five counties'and 31 municipalities-in the Dayton metropolitan area. These jurisdictions represent 97 percent of -the regional population. Each county appoints two members to the Commission and each municipality appoints one. These membersare predominantly elected officials. Funds to operate MVRPC come from membership assessments, local money for special projects, and federal grants. Membership fees are assessed at a-rate of 15 cents per capita (counties pay for unincor- porated areas only). A few special projects for local agencies are funded separately. the baiance of the budget has been derived from federal grants, primarily the HUD "701 Program." In'general, the goal of the Commission is to serve as a vehicle for coordinating policies and plans throughout, the regional area. MVRPC's concern for'the quality of the environment dates back to a "State of the Region Report" in 1966, where the problems of air and water pollution were summarized and the future impact,projected. 241 The Commission's role in environmental man agement includes chiefly the following efforts: technic "a] assistance, planning, A-95 review, and promotion of public.participation. Planning efforts have included the development of a regional open space plan, Water and sewer plan, bikeway plan, as well as other examples. In the area of techni-cal.assistance, MVRPC maintains a small environ- mental staff available to member governments and their citizens. A report was prepared inventorying the natural, resources in the region, forming the technical base for the consideration of other environ- mental programs. A status report on environmental quality critically evaluated programs in the region,and'recommended actions to be taken. Also, assistance has been provided for the preparation,of envirQn- mental impact statements. MVRPC provides the A-95 review for federal projects in the region and a similar review for state projects. The primary purpose of this review is to ensure that state or federally funded programs in the region correspond to regional planning efforts. The review carries with it the sanction of withdrawing approval for projects, and this was used in the case of two small municipalities only a few miles apart that planned to construct separate sewage treatment facilities. Finally, in the area of.promotion of citizenparticipation, the Commission has provided staff resources to assist citizen groups and developed an aggressive public information@ program. In addition to these services, the regional planning commis sion provides a non-threatening forum for the discussion of issues on a regional basis and as such encourages cooperative regional solutions to problems. COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS In the North Carolina field study, the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG) aAso had actively participated in local environ- mental management. First, PTCOG added an environmental planner to their staff. Second,' it has-participated in reviewing and commenting on environmental impact statement's through the A-95 process. Third, PTCOG has provided some technical assistance to Wins,ton-Salem and Forsyth County in developing an administrative process for local environmental impact assessment. Finally, PTCOG created the Regional Piedmont Triad Committee on Environmental Affairs (RPTCEA) consi*sting of forty individuals from the community. *Plagued by a problem of integrating the diverse task force reports, however, the RPTCEA was abolished. In the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, the North Central Texas-Council of Govern- ments (NCTCOG) has played an active role in environmental management. Besides the normal role of regional planning and participation in the A-95 process, NCTCOG contracted for a plan of a comprehensive 242 sewerage system for their ten county area. The study area, however, extended beyond the boundaries of NCTCOG and focused upon the Upper Trinity.River Basin which included portions of an additional ll counties. The area of the study covered 11,000 miles and 2.7 million population. Six joint systems are to be established and operational relationships stipulated, through the North Central Texas Regional Water Quality Compact; they would be drafted by officials of the affected cities and the joint systems operators. The proposed compact spells out the duties and responsibilities of the various levels of government. One innovative organizational aspect is the formation of a Water Development Council which would provide overall guidance and direction for the Regional Sewerage Plan. The 21 member Council is to be composed of 6 representatives from the two Dallas systems (3 selected by the operators, and 3 nominated by the System Customer Council with confirmation of the system operator), 4 from the Ft. Worth system (2 operators and 2 customers), 4 from the Trinity River Authority systems (2 operators and 2 customers), 3 from the other system's (1 operator and 2 customers); these 17 members plus 4 from the region at-large would be appointed by the Executive Board of NCTCOG. The creation of this council, by giving continuing opportunity to the participating jurisdictions to influence decisions, substantially contributed to the success of the project. SPECIAL DISTRICTS During the course of the field studies, two special districts created by states were analyzed, the Miami (Ohio) Conservancy District and the Trinity River Authority in Texas. This section examines the Ohio example, and also the Regional Anti-Pollution Authority in the Coachella Valley in California, which was voluntarily created by local municipalities. In response to the destructive flood of 1913, the Ohio legislature passed the Ohio Conservancy Act creating the Miami Conservancy District (MCD) as a subdivision of the state. The MCD has the power to levy assessments; borrow money; condemn land to provide flood protection; and plan, construct and maintain structures. The Conservancy District does not have the power to enforce regulations or to prosecute violators; state and local enforcement agencies perform those functions. The District's area of concern is defined by the geographical watershed of the streams and rivers involved. Responsibility for the District is in the hands of the Conservancy Court, which is made up of nine common pleas judges; one each from the Ohio counties included. A three-man board of directors is appointed by the Court to supervise the development and execution of the District's activities and responsibilities. These men appoint an operating staff for day-to-day management. 243 Originally, the Conservancy District had responsibility only for flood control. The flood control plan they developed provides protection from a storm 40 percent greater than the 1913 storm. However, MCD broadened its scope when it became directly involved in water quality after passage of the National Water Quality Act in 1965. A committee was formed under the sponsorship of the Dayton Chamber of-Commerce representing all permit holders (including industries, counties.and municipalities) as an act of resistance to the standards proposed for the Miami River. The District served in a technical advisory capacity to this committee. In 1967 the Conservancy District was charged by the State of Ohio with responsibility for planning developing and guiding an effective program for improving water quality in the District's watershed. The work to date has been financed mainly by six counties and 53 industries and municipalities holding Ohio permits to discharge wastes into the Great Miami River and its tributaries. In addition, substantial federal funds were provided by a grant from the Federal Water Quality Administration. A three year study resulted in the following programs: water quality management, stream appearance, in-stream aeration, low flow augmenta- tion, regional treatment of non-aqueous wastes, and, regional wastewater treatment. Other tasks in the water quality area that the District is undertaking are building and operating two additional regional treatment plants and studying landfill contamination of ground water and the movement of pollution in aquifers. Money to operate District programs comes from three sources: (1) flood control funds are obtained from a property tax collected for the District by the County Auditors; (2) water quality programs are funded by fees charged the discharge permit holders; and (3) wastewater treatment costs, e.g., the Franklin plant, are charged to the users through the City of, Franklin. The Conservancy District is an important example for the region because of the pattern of intergovernmental cooperation it has been setting for nearly sixty years. The District's intent has been to restrict itself to the field of water management, to avoid duplication of efforts, and to act as a service agency or resource for businesses and governments. A unique approach to the formation of a special district has been undertaken by four cities In California--Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio and Palm Springs. The threat of an oil refinery in a nearby mountain pass brought the cities together in a joint powers agreement to create the Regional Anti-Pollution Authority (RAPA). This voluntarily-formed special district is governed by a board of directors made up of two representatives from each city. A budget was prepared and a formula for a voluntary assessment based on assessed valuation and population agreed upon. In 1971-72, RAPA had a $55,655 budget supporting a total staff of three. 244 Among the additional activities the Authority has undertakenzre: testimony on state legislation, analysis of local environmental regulations, ditizen seminars on pollution, review of environmental impact statements, and public information. RAPA has been actively concerned with preserving the desert environment, and has.@promoted new controls, e.g., regulations on hillside development, aimed at this objective. 245 SUMMARY Three aspects of organizing for environmental management were examined in this section: (1) local internal organizational structure; (2) .. structure for citizen participation; and '(3) intergovernme nt6l struc-@ ture and approaches. Based upon the fie"Id studies, 'there seems to be considerabl'e`vairiet'y in arrangements utilized by local governments. In"rel"ation to the internal organizational structure, environmental responsibilities have traditionally been dispersed throughout'several.1, departments, resulting in problems of coordination. Local' govern'- ments have attempted to alleviate these problems by expanding an existing agency-t o include environmentaVfurittions, C Ireating a separate environmental agency,"or establishing an administrative committee.' The principle factors in determin,ing.the approach to be adopted include: (1) which program areas are to be Coordinated; (2) which functions ar 'e to be coordinated; and (3) which ap roach it most consistent with the P organ i zat i ona I c 1 i ma te. The separate agency seems to promote an advocate role that may-place it in an adversary relation with.othe 'r departments. The desirabi.lity of this depends Upon th& particular local situation. One of the m'ost'common approaches for receiving citizen participation is through citizen commissions. Municipal-spons6red citii-ein environ-@ mental commissions vary on several aspects: (1) it can be a new board or an expansion of an existing'board; (2) it may be permanent or temporary; (3) it can have a broad purpose or be limi 'ted to certain subject areas; (4) it can be advisory or have some authority; (5) members can be experts or r`epresentatives of the community at large; and, (6) it can have staff and*a budget or have'n'one., Inglewood,, California, combined several boards responsib 'le forpIcinning'and code appeals into.a single board. Dallas created a temporary commit.tee-to advise the city what its environmental role should be...Guilford 'County- appointed a board of experts t .o provide technical.advice. Intergovernmental arrangements can be even more diverse in nature. This chapter discussed two county solid waste di.sposa,l con'tra.ct's'ervice,s, a multi-county health district air pollution contract serv,ice,, s@everal environmental functions of a regi-onal-planning commission and a Council of governments, and a state-,enacted special purpose river basin,,(water quality -- flood control) distri.ct.. Whi-le,it is generally recognized that "regional'-' organizations are nec essary,to address environmental problems ove 'rl'apping local boundaries, there are a number of obstacles to the success of these efforts. In reference to the divers1ty of organizational arrangements,' perhaps a city manager summed it up best when he stated: "How does one organize to accomplish environmental management at the city .-level? There is no one right way; what works is correct." 246 C. Strategies for Environmental Management The failure of past local programs to safeguard the environment.has led many local governments to search for better tools or.strategies for coping with environmental problems. To date, much of.the,local action has been an attempt to solve environmental problems once they arise, either through an enforcement program or provision of pollution control facilities. For example, when water pollution became a problem,local governments acted to provide a sewage treatment plant with capacity to handle it. Or, after flood Waters damaged areas In the ' community, attempts would be.M'ade to-dam or channelize the streams. More recently, however, the focus of much of local governments' environ- mental efforts has been to anticipate and prevent such problems from occurring when posIsible. Land use- controls, for example, can be instituted,to prevent construction within a flood plain. And in the area of water quality standards, municipalities often require that water entering the sewer system be of a certain quality, necessitating pretreatment by a manufacturl.ng plant. The focus of the field studies was'on forward-16oking strategies with broad application, rather than on technical solutions to specific problems. Consequently,.the four cities were examined Iwith respect to the following programs:. environ mental planning, environmental impact assessment, and environmental quality standards. A first step in developing environmental programs is the formulation of a policy stateme nt on the environment. While one can question the utility of such a statement, a well-prepared policy sta'tement can provide direction for the entire staff of the organization and define some parameters for the development of future strategies. To put these policies into effect, they are almost always adopted by the legislative body. This is usually accomplis,hed.in the form of a policy resolution or as a part. of the planning process. The City of Westminster, California, for example! adopted an environ- mental policy statement as part of its comprehensive general,.plan'. It stated: The policy of the citizens and.the city government of, Westminster is to enhance and maintain property to hig@h i .1. aesthetic standards, minimize adverse environmental impacts of urbanization and industrialization, and eliminate dete- riorating environmental situations or processes in o@der to achieve a community compatible to Wholesome psychological, physiological, and sociological growth. t 247 Similarly, the City of Garland, Texas adopted the following policy statement: The City of Garland will consider the environmental impact and associated economic implications of any public or private action and will strive to obtain the balance of factors providing the optimum community benefit. Further, this city will' initiate and encourage actions to insure and safeguard a desirable environment. With a general policy directive for guidance, a subseque 'nt step taken locally was to insure that environmental concerns were considered by each city department (or those departments directly involved in environmental activities). In Phoenix, Arizona, the City Manager requested that departments undertake the following efforts: 1. Create an awareness of environmental issues among your staff. 2. Inventory and document community environmental problems to be corrected and resources to be protected. These can be problems resulting from activities of your department or that you contact in the performance of your duties. Determine what the city is doing, if this is suffici-ent and how we might improve the situation. 3. Assess the environmental impact of proposed projects, programs, ordinances and other activities. This additional criteria should be present where relevant in evaluating future proposals. 4. If your department has programs directly involved in environ- mental issues, develop an appropriate'public information program. Most communities are faced with a variety of environmental problems and responsibilities and as a result need to search out broad strategies as outlined above to deal with them. In applying these programs to other contexts,the following factors should be considered for each individua! community: (1) the severity of the environmental problem(s); (2) the type of pollutant; (3) the source of present and potential pollution; (4) financial resources; (5) community resources; (6)' avail- able information; and, (7) staff expertise. While the strategies discussed below are flexible enough to be as useful to small juris- dictions as large, the complexities of environmental programs require considerable analytic capability. This capability is needed to.define local needs, tailor a package of strategies to these needs, analyze the interrelationships so there are few unintended results, and prepare for implementation. (See Figure 5 for examples of policy statements of Garland.) ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Environmental planning, although subject to many,definitions and interpretations, is used here to cover the consideration of 248 FIGURE 5. EXAMPLES OF POLICY STATEMENTS ADOPTED BY CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS-* Area of Concern Policy Air quality The quality of air should not adversely affect the health of even the most sensitive or susceptible groups of the population Pollutants should not reach concentrations that would significantly reduce visi- bility, especially visibility reductions that would, or could, be a hazard to transportation Solid waste This city shall pursue technically and financially feasible methods of solid 'waste collection, separation, disposal, recycling and recovery which reduce the environmental impact of solid waste disposal, achieve energy or resource recovery, or recycle useful materials. Water quality This city will pursue the construction and operation of pollution.free waste- water treatment facilities, thus recycling wastewater to a reusable condition Noise control The city resolves to initiate programs establishing and maintaining reasonable levels of noise tolerance Urban ae.sthet'ics and A specific object-ive of this city is to land man.agement insure a commitment, both public and private, to a pleasing aesthetic appearance. The pol icies listed bel owlare'only a portion of those adopte d by the City; each area of concern contained several policy statements and only part of them are shown here. 249 environmental concerns In the comprehensive and land use planning processes. The first step in envi,ronmental planning,then, is to determine the particular environmental characteristics of the area. This has been called a natural resources inventory, and has been described most thoroughly by Ian McHarg in Design With Nature. In 1967 the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission published a report of the "Natural Resources of the Miami Valley Region." The purpose of,the report was to Identify the natural resources in the I ke recommendatlons,relative region, analyze associated problems, and ma to managing these resources. Topi'cs discussed Included: geology and minerals, soils, water, biological resources (e.g., fish, wildlife), climate and precipitation, flood plain encroachment, water pollution, air pollution, and policy issues and recommendations for the proper maintenance and use of resources. This report served as a , technical base for the consideration of other environmental programs throughout the region. In Dallas, when the task of reviewing environmental impact statements was assigned to the Planning Department, it quickly became evident to them that they had no environmental data in their plans from which to estimate the environmental@impacts of proposed projects... The Planning Department subsequently contracted with a consulting firm for the Dallas Eco Study. The purposes of that study were: --to identify, quantify, and map the extent and location of 32 natural resources that are part of the Dallas County ecological system --to store and display the data on the relative tolerance of the ecological systems to-human impacts --to provide a mechanism for the development of models to evaluate the impact o*f projects on natural resources. After getting estimates of $200,000 to $300,000, a consulting firm finally was found that agreed to do the study for $25,000. However, the Planning Department participated in the data source search and coding, including Interpreting infrared maps, and the computer programming necessary to display the data on maps. The data, for the most part, came from secondary sources including United States Geological Service maps, infrared mapping from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, Dallas Geological Society, and local experts., The following were criteria used in sel.ecting,variabl.es: --Enable spatial relationship of information --Enable recording of information for future use in impact quantification --Enable value judgments to be placed upon systems and their sub-units 250 --Allow for the up-dating of the stored information --AI'low for the analysis of information for multf-pdrpose planning _-B6 feasible from an economic and time standpoint --Enable in-house capability for carrying on the planning process --Enable transfer of programs and methodology for ongoing in--house-'operation --Provide the complexity of data appropriate to the level of decision-making required. After a review of possible variables, data was collected on 32 natural resource variables and 3 measures'of urbanization. The natural resources were part'of 5 eco-systems; there were 5 zoological characteristics (e.g., Pileated Woodpecker habitat, complex wildlife areas@, iO botanical characteristics (e.g., unique botanical areas, natural and man-made marsh), 14 hydromorphic characteristics (e.g., flood plains, watersheds), I edaphic characteristic (i.e., 9 soil'associati6ns), and 2 geomorphic characteristics (i.e., 7 surface geology types, and fault l'ines). In addit'ion@to the indivi'dual variables@,-maps were also generated from them for -6 eco-systems (hydromorphic was s'ubdivided into surface and sub-surface), and for 2 broader systems--the biotic (i.e., botanical and zoological) and abiotic. The data on these variableswere collected for 10,000 grids or cells. Although this seems large, it must be noted that the study area (Dallas County) was 900 square miles. The result is that each cell contained 61.8 acres or each cell was 1/3 mile in length. This relatively large size was deemed appropriate, considering the scale of the data source maps and hence the efficiency of delineating and extracting the data, and the level of decision-making requiring the data to be collected. Despite the assurance that quite a few developments in Dallas exceed 62 acres, it.seems that cells of such a large size limit the utility of the project. Once the data was collected, interpreted and delineated (i.e., to fit the grid scale of the study), patterns were extracted (i.e., either the predominant pattern for a resource in a cell was noted, or the 'P.roportion,of the cell covered by the resource was calculated). The next step was'to code these data: a numerical. code was used on OCR (Optical Scanner R*eader) forms. (The equipment used for.the project included: one IBM 370 OS VS"l, five IBM 2402 Tape Drives, one IBM 1404 Printer, three IBM 2319 Disc Storage Devices, one IBM 2540 Card Reader Punch, and one IBM 1287 Optical Character Scanner.) The final step of the process involved producing maps for each of the variables. In addition to indicating the predominance and location of these natural resources, a major element of the program was to indicate the sensitivity of these resource patterns to human impact. The consulting 251 firm was responsible for the modeling that resulted in these.estimates of tolerance, although judgments for some of the component factors were often made by the local experts. These maps of resource tolerance could*then be combined under 'a variety of conditions or value assumptions. For instance, a map was produced which could indicate the tolerance of the area for.development or human impact. A. second map merely showed the areas where there was a multiplicity of ecological sub- .Systems rather than their degree of tolerance. A third map assumed that the biotic component was twice as important as other components. They noted that the biotic community was easier to identify and observe, and, therefore could serve as a valuable Indicator of the changes occurring in the ecological environment. A fourth map utilized the urbanization data and therefore suggested, when combined with other data from the study, which areas were suitable for..urban development. The preparation of the Rallas Epo Study has served many functions; namely, --it increased knowledge and expertise of Planning-Department personnel on the ecological environment of Dal,las --it developed skills in environmental.management --it developed a mechah.ism.which will aid in monitoring the environment --the output map of the study will aid in general routing (i.e., transportation planning) and siting of public facilities, as well as provide valuable information in zoning cases --it will serve as an educational tool to be used in schools --it enlisted community participation., The flexibili.ty in mapp,i.ng in the Dallas study makes the Inventory a much more useful tool for decision makers than the published inventory of MVRPC. Environmental planning then becomes more than a statement of environmental problems and long-range policies. It is a tool than.can provide tailored information relevant to future activities, e.g., the Impact of a proposed new airport. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT As a relatively new strategy for.,environmental management, environmental impact assessment is one of the more controversial mechanisms. Of all the field study c*ities, Inglewood was the only one which had adopted some form of assessment process. In May'1972, Inglewood established formal requirements for environmental impact review (EIR), Then in February 1973, the Resources Agency of California issued its guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental,Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970. In April, 1973, the City Council of Inglewood amended its own requirements and procedures to 252 conform to the state's guideli'nes (see case study for discussion of old guidelines). Prior to the revision of the guidelines in April 19739 11 public and 25 private projects Were subject to the EIR process. Of the 11 public projects, 3 or the EIRs had to be.changed as a result of the review process, and 2 of these projects were modified as a result; no projects were rejected. Of the 25 private projects subject to the EIR process, 20 Environmental Clearance Statements were accepted unconditionally, 3 were accepted conditionally, and 2 were subject to ca'full Environmental Impact Study; no projects were rejected. The procedure as now established requires the Planning and Development Director'(rather. than-a broa'der-base*d Environmental Review Committee composed of representatives of several departments) to make the initial decisions whether: (a) the project or activity is covered by the CEQA or Council ordinance, (b) exempt because the governmental action is deemed to be either an emergency, or of a ministerial nature, or (c) categorically exempt. Ministerial acts include filing of sub-diviiion maps and issuing building permits--both of which had been included in Inglewood's EIR process prior to these revisions. Projects that are categorically exempt-are: (1) existing facilities which are merely being repaired, maintained, or:altered slightly (additional space Is lim[ted to 2500 square feet or 50%, whichever is less); (2) replacement or re6onstructi .on of existing structures and facilities, with substantially the same purpose and size; (3) new construction of small structures (e.g., a single family home-- provided no more than two are built--or stores and offices designed for no more than 20 occupants); (4) minor-alterations to land (e.g., grading on land with less than 10% slope); (5) minor alterations In land use limitat.ions--i.e., minor lot line adjustments and set-back variancesI not zoning changes which are not exempt; (6) accessory structures Ts-uch as small parking lots, on-premise signs, drainage proJects under $10,000). The last four categories 'may not be exempt If the project is in a particularly sensitive enviro'nment, or if the cumulative impact of successive minor changes results in a significant impact. Other categorical exemptions include, information collection, regulatory actions for protection of natural resources and for protection of the environment, inspections, loans, and surplus government property sales (except land). If the project Is not exempt, the Planning and Development Director must then decide whether the project may have possible significant environmental effects. If he declares that It will not have such Impact, he Issues a Negative Declaration, which Is posted and becomes final after 10 days If it has'not been appealed. In Inglewood, appeals are heard by the Community Environment Commission (which is a joint group composed of the Planning and Zoning Board and the Constructions Appeals Board), after a fee of $50 has been paid; their decision may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days on payment of a $25 fee. The Director's decision that a project may have significant impact and therefore requires an Environmental Impact Report 'also is appealable under the conditions noted above. 253 The factors to be considered in making the decision whether a project may have a significant environmental impact requiring further study are basically the'same as those the Environmental Review Committee was to use in making the same decision under Inglewood's earlier guidelines--with the exception that assessing the project's effect on the need for public services is not specifically mentioned and the new language only mentions "posing a burden on the existing street system" in its place. .Reference to impacts on irreplacable cul,tural, historical, and recreational sites also was dropped at this decision point; but it and the impact of the project upon public services must be included in the full Environmental Impact'Report, if one is required. it should also-be noted that the guidelines specifically stated that the factors to be considered were not to be limited to those listed. Further, both primary and secondary consequences of an action are to be' considered (e.g., the consequences upon the en'viron- ment of any resulting population growth). If an EIR is required, the draft (which may be made by the developer) is circulated to interested departments and is made available to the public upon request. Comments are to be made within 30 days, and a final EIR is to be prepared within an additional 30 days. The city then decides whether the project will or will not have a significant effect on the environment, and whether or not to approve the project. An Environmental Impact Report must include: (a) the environmental impact of the proposed action, including primary and secondary impacts as well as short-term and long-term ones, at each stage--acquisition, construction, operation--of the project; (b) any adverse'environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented; (c) mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact; (d) alternatives to the proposed action (including alternative mitigation measures, and theoption of having.no project at all), with the reasons for rejecting them; (e) relationship between the short-term use of the environment and the perspective that each generation is the trustee of the environment for future generations; (f) any irreversible ,environmental changes if the project were implemented; (g) the growth inducing impacts-of the proposed action; and (h) the boundaries of the affected area, which actually may be quite far from the proposed site. The EI-R process has introduced environmental considerations into the decision-:making process 'and has contributed to its rationality and openness. The Environmental Impact Review process has proven success- ful--not so'much because it has killed environmentally damaging projects, but because it has introduced environmental considerations into the decision-making process of both private developers,as well as govern- mental decision-makers. Its most serious problem may be the inability to accurately assess the environmental impact of a project, given the current state of available knowledge. Other criticisms of the process, such as its cost, or delay involved, are minor when compared to the 254 benefits that can be gained if a project that is potentially harmful to the environment is blocked.. But the technique requires dedicated administrators and vigilant citizen participption;,the.process can quite easily become a pro forma exercise without these. ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS A key strategy for environmental management Is the development and enforcement of,environmental quality standards! Generally, specific ordinances are enacted aimed at the specific pollution problem, e.g., air, water or noise. SI nce the degree of local authority In each of these areas depends upon state enabling legislation, It is difficult to generalize local experience. The level of enforcement effort also varies greatly between local governments. Furthermore, most enforce- ment programs require a specialized enforcement staff. Water In Greensboro, North Carolina,.the, city government adopted an ordinance in January, 1961, that established limitations on waste wh ich it would accept. Unacceptable.wastes included: --any liquid or'vapor having a temperature of 150*F. -,-any solids such.a s ashes, sand,.mud, etc. --any gasoline, flammable or explosive liquids --any improperly shredded garbage --any waste,having a s-tabilized pH.of less than, 5.5 o.r more t,han 1.0.0 --any cyanides --any noxious o.r malodorous gases. In an amendment, a surcharge was es.tabl .ished on those industries,and commercial establishments.which contribute,exce ss BOO and suspended solids in their.wastewater discharge. No maximum limit on concentration was .set forth. Immediately after the amendments passed., the city sent a letier-to all potentially af .fected industry volunteering city personnel and laboratories to aid industry in problems of in-plant control at no charge. Pl.ants made one of three responses; either they cleaned up and installed necessary equipment; they cleaned up in part.by eliminating most postly,pollution;,or, they took no action.. The thirdalternative occurred most often since it was considered.less expensive.,to pay the city surcharge. A sampling schedule was.then set up based on.the monthly surcharge rate: --Iess@$100, twice a year, --$100 to @500, four times a year --over $500, six times a year 255 A minimum of three days is devoted to sampling each plant with an authentic average used to determine rate. Due to sampling problems with restaurants and laundromats, a special fixed unit charge is made. Theadvantages to this program are: (1) the program is-sel,f sustaining financia.1l,y, (2) iridustry is kept aware of the problem of wastewater treatment, (3) waste loads are lower, and (4) current information can be distributed, The City of Dallas also maintains a water quality program. While it-has an ordinance controlling wastes discharged into the sewer system, no continuous monitoring is made and no schedule of effl,uent charges exists. Dallas does spot monitor outfalls into the Trinity River. However, the City has not brought any suits against violators, but instead turns to the state for enforcement assistance when voluntary compliance is not forthcoming-. Dallas also staffs a biological assay team that regularly monitors every stream in the city for aquatic life. It is felt that the health of stream life is the best measure of pollution. Air In each of the field study areas, air pollution was primarily a state responsibility, with day to day operations delegated to a subdivision, e.g., special district or county (see the discussion of the Miami-Valley Combined Health District air pollution control program on page 240 ). I . Although the State similarly is responsible for air pollution control in Texas, the.absence of a vigorous enforcement program has led many local governments to establish their own programs. In Dallas, the monitoring and enforcement program has been relatively low key. The Air Pollution Control Section's program of monitoring air pollution at approximately 14 sites has.resulted in cleaner a4r (e.g., 25% less suspended particulates) than existed in 1968 when the section began functioning. The enforcement program included 13 convictions in 1972 with about 25 cases still pending at the beginning of 1973; fines generally were $100, but compliance with standards was achieved in these cases. It is estimated that Dallas industry spent $2.5 million since 1966 for equipment and an equal amount for maintenance and operation of air pollution control systems. :7 Noise In the area of noise pollution, Inglewood has played a leading role. In September 1969, the city adopted a 10 point program, which was to be carried out, in part, by a newly created Environmental Standards Division. A Director was hired in November 1969 after a vigorous recruitment campaign. 256 The 10-point plan called for: 1. A series of law suits against Los Angeles.for ' damages on behalf of residents and property owners in Inglewood, and to compel them to extend their runways thereby permitting landing aircraft to be at a higher altitude whil.e over I-nglewood. ' 2. A comprehensive noise ordinance. Development of the ordinance-and enforcement of it required a variety of monitoring equipment. The equipment that-was purchased included a van which contained a microphone, precision sound level meter, octave band analyzer, graphic recorder, camera equipmen-t, and tools and other accessories. Some.of this equipment Was for the City's general noise monitoring program, and some of it was aimed at collecting data necessary for Inglewood's campaign on aircraft noise. In addition to this portable equipment, there were also 4 fixed microphones on telephone poles in the flight path and a central recording station in City Hall to receive the aircraft noise data. It should be noted that a city could begin its program with a relatively simple hand-held meter (although it would have limited utility for any court cases). The noise ordinance that was adopted is similar to the Model Noise Ordinance developed by the-League of California Cities. The ordinance establishes standards which vary according to different zones and times. For instance the assumed base ambient noise level for residential.areas at night is 45 dbA, while it is.55 dbA during the day; this compares to 65 dbA for commercial zones during the day. Any continuous noise 5 dbA above the ambient level is prohibited; guidelines suggested that intermittent noise (less that,5 minutes an hour) should not exceed 10 'dbA above the ambient, and short duration noise (lasting only a few seconds) is limited to 15 dbA above the ambient for purposes of enforcement. A special provision was written for aircraft-noise. Because ofiearlier federal court rulings limiting the power of other cities to regulate interstate commerce such as airplane flights, the ordinance exempted any planes flying in conformity with federal air regulations or traffic control instructions. But if a plane was'in violation of these rules--e.g., flying significantly below the proscribed landing approach glide path--it was prohibited.from producing noise levels above 90 dbA. 3. Building codes were to be revised requiring soundproofing of all new construction and remodeling. ' 4-. Master plan and zoning regulations were to be re-examined in order to adjust land use in areas in the aircraft landing corridors. 5. The city attempted to get Los Angeles*to.extend its runways toward the ocean, thus permitting-planes to be at a higher altitude while flying over Inglewood. 257 6. It also tried to get other revisions in the approach pattern (e.g., prohibiting turns in the area). 7. It urged that approaches to the airport be at a steeper angle It urged the Iairlines to develop quieter (and cleaner) engi'ne's. 9. It de'Voted a major effort to appearing before FAA,,CAB, and Cal'Ifornia Public Utilities Commission proceedings affecting noise. 10. It,helped form a national organization concerned with noise aba'tement--NOISE (Nationat Organization to Insure a Sound- controlled Environment). The city has sought to use the courts in enforcement processes. With the help of special counsel, a suit was filed against the City of Los Angeles, which owns the Los Angeles International Airport, in the U.S. District Court in May, 1969. A nearly identical suit was filed in the California Superior Court in October, 1969. The main,reason for initiating the backup suit ih the state court was that it had a lower minimum monetary jurisdiction; a plaintiff has to have damages of $10,000 to sue in federal court, but only $5,000 in the state court. The federal court ruled that Inglewood did not have standing to sue. This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals which ruled that Inglewood could sue and remanded the case back to the lower court which, in part, was to determine as part of the trial whether the owners had suffered the minimum amount of damages necessary for a federal suit. But Inglewood decided to drop its federal suit and press its case in the state court, The city won the first round when the court rejected Los Angeles' motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of "multiplicity of actions" (i.e., the suit in Federal Court and a separate suit by a group of Inglewood residents). Los Angeles' appeal of this decision is now under consideration. In addition, Inglewood's suit in Federal Court was filed in behalf of residents and some of these are trying to have the Federa'I suit re-instated. This discussion of Inglewood's civil suits clearly indicates one of the major weaknesses of this strategy--i.e., it is subject to great- delays, increasing it@-costs. Inglewood's criminal case did not fare better. When the city filed misdemeanor charges in March 1971 against an airline's pilot for violating its noise ordinance, an injunction against enforcement of this part of the ordinance was issued. Radiation In Miamisburg, a special program of cooperation exists between the Mound Laboratory, under AEC contract, and the City. The Mound Lab 258 Program of Safety and Environmental Control has evolved coiccident with the dramatic increase in public awareness concerning environmental issues. Two events occurred in 1968 which, in retrospect, appear to have been significant in establishing the present open and cooperative climate in which the program is conducted. In that year, a Miamisburg City Councilman read a series of newspaper accounts of a report of radiation tolerance were too high and should be lowered to prevent potential long-range genetic and other environmental effects. The Councilman, through the city staff, initiated a series of discussions with the Mound Lab concerning the impact of this report upon the citizens of Miamisburg and the surrounding communities. Simultaneously, the Atomic Energy Commission, under considerable environmental pressure, became persuaded that more openness was needed in its communication with the public concerning the environmental impact of its contract facilities and licensed radiation sources. Apparently the effect of these events had a major impact of the public posture of Mound Lab with respect to its environmental control program. Subsequent to 1968, Mound Lab renewed its emphasis on environmental control and safety by internal reorganization which gave top priority to the matters of employee safety; containment of pollution at the source; and on-site and off-site monitoring systems. The basis intent of the control program is to prevent at the source any radiation leaks or safety hazards both to the community and to employees within the plant. The monitoring program is set at various levels of "triggering" to assure that any leakage would be discovered well before reaching critical exposure levels. The monitoring program is designed around the standards developed by the Federal and state governments to control pollution. AEC regulations on radiation protection are based principally on the Radioactivity Concentration Guide (RCG) levels recommended by the Office of Radiation Programs of the Environmental Protection Agency. The levels represent limits in the concentration of radioactivity for each specific type of radioactive material that should not be exceeded. All effluents leaving the laboratory are analyzed for pollutants. Samples taken on and off-site are reviewed for radio- activity in the basic elements man contacts, e.g., air, water, soil, and foodstuffs. Mound has two treatment plants that process all liquid wastes before they are discharged into the Miami River. In addition to two on-site water sampling stations which operate con- tinously, there are five water sampling locations along a seven mile stretch of river. The effluent is analyzed for three radio-active materials (polonium, plutonium, and tritium) as well as 29 different water quality parameters listed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Lab also monitors air quality, beginning with stack emissions. The off-site air sampling survey covers an area of some 1,250 square miles. The samples are collected three times a week in each 259 of the 21 off-site air sampling stations. These facilities were then turned over to the Montgomery County Combined Health Department for operating as an air monitoring system. The Monsanto/Mound facility shares in the data in all.21 such stations. Thus, everyone believes that they are Health Department facilities, with the end result being an excellent program within which the Mound Laboratory, through cooperation-with a public regional agency, gains needed information without public alarm by minimizing the physical presence of its monitoring activities. 260 SUMMARY Several strategies for environmental arrangement are available to local governments. However, it was not possible to investigate them all.in the four field studies. This chapter, therefore, reviewed three major strategies: natural systems inventory, environmental impact assess- ment, and environmental quality standards. The natural systems inventory is seen as an important step in local environmental planning. The inventory can take the form of a planning report, as in the case of the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, or a computor-based information program, as in Dallas. The Dallas experience indicates that such a program can be undertaken at minimal cost. The discussion of environmental impact assessment was based on the experience of Inglewood, California. The Inglewood process, entitled total impact analysis, includes consideration of economic and social impact as well as environmental. The procedures followed are explained in some detail. While the impact assessment is regarded as successful in terms of introducing environmental considerations into the decision making process of public officials and private developers, it is criticized for the inadequacy of current knowledge, cost and possible project delays. Several local programs for the enforcement of environmental quality standards were discussed. In Greensboro, North Carolina, and Dallas, water quality was examined. Greensboro has established wastewater standards with a system of surcharges for violations. Dallas monitors outfalls into the Trinity River and also city streams. The air pollution control program In Dallas is somewhat unique because the State has the primary legal responsibility for air pollution control in Texas. They maintain a small staff for monitoring and enforcement, although emphasis Is a voluntary compliance. A vigorous noise control program was found in Inglewood. Their noise program includes a comprehensive noise ordinance, monitor;ng, revised building codes, and initiation of legal suits. The city's effectiveness in noise control has been somewhat limited in the case of the aircraft noise from Los Angeles International Airport, although legal cases are still pending. The final example of radiation control in Miamisburg, Ohio, is important for two reasons: (1) it is an area of emerging interest, and (2) it demonstrates a federal, local, private cooperative relationship. 261 Perhaps the key.Point to be made by these examples of local strategies. is that they are now being successfully carried out and-at a cost that is not prohibitive to most local governments. In many respects, however, the programs are experimental in the sense that there sti.11 needs to be greater technical input and better program evaluation. 262 APPENDIX CRITICAL VARIABLES AND RELATED RESEARCH QUESTIONS The General Condition of the Environment (Living and Physical). How did the environmental issues come to attention of the local government? How did local governmental officials knowlthere was an environmental problem? Was there an environmental crisis near or in the jurisdiction of the local government? If so, what type of problem? How long did it last? What was the public reaction to the problem? What was the government's'reaction to the problem? Does the local government monitor the quality'of the env.iron- ment? If so, how?' Is there In existence.an environmental inventory? 2. Attitudes and Opinions of the Community toward the Environment What is the attitude of local administrators toward the environ-, ment? What is the attitude of local elected officials toward the environment? What is the attitude of the news media (editorials and news coverage toward the environment? What is the attitude of the citizenry toward the environment? How have these attitudes been manifested into action? 3. Political and Legal Context.of the Local Government What are the major environmental issues facing local policy makers? How have the voters behaved in past elections on environ- mental issues? 263 How heavily have candidates for public office campaigned on environ- mental issues? What were the results of the election? What past issues have involved environmental matters? How did they get into the political arena? How werethe issues resolved?. What interest and citizen groups have been active in environmental issues? What were their goals? What political strategies did they use? Who belongs to the group? How are their leaders? What issues are they acti.ve on? What are the constitutional limitations on the powers of the local government? What type of governmental structure does the local body have? Who are, the elected officials? Who are the chief administrative personnel? What are their back- grounds and experiences, particularly in environmental management? What is the relationship between the local government being studied and other governmental bodies both local and state? 4. Environ'mental Policy What environmental policy.(ies) have been adopted by the local govern- ment? What was the process for adoption? What opposition to the policy existed? How is the environmental policy being implemented? What is the relationship between local environmental policies and state poticies and requirement? and between local environmental policies and Federal policies and requirements? Who wrote the policy? Werethere general guidelines? 5. Administrative Organization for the Environment In general, how is the local government organized? How does the envi.ronmental program fit in? What is the budget for environmental programs? How does this compare to the overall local government budget? How much aid does the local govern- 264 ment receive from the state and the Federal government? What is the process for obtaining the financial aid? How do env'ironmental programs fit into the capital budget? What organizational changes have been made to improve local environmental management? Has a citizen advisory board or commission been created? If so, How was it established? Who serves on the commission? What is their background? How are they appointed? What is their primary responsibility? What is the function of the commission? What is the financial cost? Wha,t.prpblems exist in implementation? What suggestions for improvements can be made? How does it relate to other boards and commissions? Has an individual been designated as head of the environmental programs: If so, Who is this person? What is his background? What are the job requirements? What are his primary functions? How does he relate to.other administrators and departments? Has an administrative committee been created? If so, Who is a member of the committee? What is their primary responsibility? How often do they meet? Who is chai*rman of the committee? Has an environmental department or agency been created? How was it established? Who established it? Who are the employees of the department? What are the backgrounds of the personnel in'the department? What training have they had.in environmental management? What are the current responsi- bilities and functions? What programs do they have responsibility for? How are the programs being implemented? What criteria would they use to evaluate their effectiveness? How effective are the programs? What problems (administrative and political) have they encountered? What alternative administrative structure could be suggested? What relationship exists between this department and other departments, particularly planning and public works? What is the role of the chief administrative officer in local environmental management? How, are the various programs coordinated? 265 Strategies for Local Environmental Management Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Quality Standards and their Enforcement, Economic Incentives@and Penalties, Land Use Controls and Planning, Court Cases, Moratoriums, etc. For each strategy, the fo.1lowing set of quest.ions will be used: How was the'strategy developed? Who developed it? How was approval secured? What political problems occurred? How is the strategy being implemented?- Who has primary re- sponsibility? How much does the strategy cost,? What are.the procedures?: What personnel resources are being expended? Who are the personnel? What training and background do they have? What criteria are presently being used to evaluate the strategy? How effective is the strategy in improving environmental -quality? What suggestion can be made for improvements? 7. Intergovernmental Relations in Environmental Management What regional arrangement exists in environmental management7 How was this arrangement created? What is the role of the local government being studied? How is it financed? What areits.responsi-bility and functions-? Who are its employees? How successful has the arrangement been-? ,What problems have been encountered? What suggestions can be made? What state programs does the local. government participate in? What is-the relationship between governmental bodies? What is the financial arrangement.? What problems exist? How can these problems be overcome7 What Federal programs does the local government participate in? What is the spedific.relationship between governmental bodies? What is the financial relationship? What problems exist? How can these problems be overcome? What is the relationship between the local government and the U.S. EPA? 266 APPENDIX 2 REPORT ON THE FIELD TRIP TO DALLAS, TEXAS Introduction The City of Dallas has experienced rapid growth between]960.and 1970 with its population increasing nearly 25% to total 850.,000.- The land area for Dallas also increased by 16% during those-tenyears to 295 square miles. To the untrained observer, Dallas even'With its tremendous growth, gives the impression of wide open spades. This feeling of space, combined with a belief in growth and the free enterprise system, leads many citizens to feel that there are no environmental problems in Dallas; But Dallas' tn vironmental problems are keeping pace with its growth. Located near the center of northeast Texas, Dallas is on the western edge of the Gulf Coastal Plain. The prairie basin is drained entirely by the Trinity River and its tributaries. The Trinity River is considered to have a "relatively low" pollution level in comparison to rivers in other cities like Houston and Cleveland. The major causes of water pollution in the Trinity are oil and grease from city streets, service stations, and oil disposed of by citizens after lubricating their automobiles; and phosphates from detergents and fertil'izers. In fact, water pollution experts have pointed but that during the summer months, the Trinity River is 90-95% treated effluent. Like many other cities, Dallas periodically experiences atmospheric conditions known as a temperature inversion. These inversions are associated with poor atmospheric diffusion conditions with the cycle of inversion and non- inversion conditions drastically affecting the air pollution,problem. The principal result of the inversion is to inhibit vertical motions of the atmosphere. Air pollution experts note Dallas' location in a basin with walls of only 300-500 feet or 1000 feet if adjoining counties are added. This basin increases the air pollution problems associated with inversions. From another point of view, Dallas is thought of as a "well-ventilated city"due to wind speed averaging about 10 mph. Dust particle concentration measurements in Dallas show,that the pollution level increases during the work week in spite of the winds. It is quite evident that the amount of ventilation is far from sufficient from the pollution standpoint. Noise pollution in many pa Irts of the city is a serious problem, particularly in those areas under the take off and landing patterns around Love Field. Another source of noise pollution is highways with inadequate noise buffers. In terms of land use patterns, there is insufficient open space in many areas to buffer incompatible land uses. The City of Dallas has recognized its environmental problems and has undertaken a variety of strategies to improve environmental quality, including: 267 --an ordinance re discharging industrial wastes (see Addendum a.) --development of a. Water Reclamation Research Center for conducting research in waste water treatment --cataloging all major portions of the sanitary sewer system and the preparation of a computer model of the sewer system .to include'a quantity of flow and number of new customers in each drainage area --a ban on all open burning.of refuse --a system of sanitary landfills for solid waste disposal --development of a plan for separation and recycling of solid wastes --research on pollution resistent plants --civic sponsored beautification program --completion of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Transportation Study and Regional Public Transportation Study- --a federally-funded Urban Corridor Demonstration Program designed to produce significant gains in the elimination of traffic congestion on freeways and streets by giving preferred treatment to buses'. --revision of subdivision regulations to reflect considerations of design and environment. --creation of a temporary citizens' advisory committee to assess environmental conditions. Since it would be impossible to analyze all organizational changes and environmental management programs,.oniy'the following aspects are discussed in this report. Three organizational Innovations have been identified: --the Committee on Environmental Quality as a temporary cit'izen advisory body --the Trinit y River Authority as a*state-created, regional body responsible for the environmental quality of the Trinity River y Basin --a report completed under the North Central Texas Council of Governments recommending a Comprehensive Sewerage-.P.lan for the Upper Trinity River Basin In terms of environmental management programs, three strategl*es are analyzed: --the Ecological Study which was an inventory of present environmental condit.ions, both physical and social in Dallas County --programs in environment quality standards and their enforcement, concentrating on air and water standards --the Water Reclamation Research Center, using both municipal and federal funding, in doing a research project on waste water treatment and possible recycling 268 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL-QUALITY, The involvement of citizens in envi ronmental affairs at the local level through the creation.of an advisory committee may or may not serve any purpose beyond "window dressing." However, a number of worthwhile purposes are possible: --to bring additional expertise to decision makers, with selection of committee members based on technical skills or knIqW.1 edge 1 : : " @ ..@ ,I. --to call public attention to an environmentally related-problem and generate support for governmental actions. Consequently, committee members might be selec,ted for being an environmental, proponent or for investigative skills. . I I . --to make preliminary decisions which are reviewed by elected officials or determining community goals and priorities, with selection of committee members based on representativeness of the community. These are not exclusive functions;.for instance, an advisory.committee may accompl-ish all of these objectives and have its membership selected on the basis of all of these criteria. In Dallas, the Committee on Environmental Quality was selected primarily with considerations,of representativeness in mind rather than technical expertise or investi- gative skills, or resources (such as time), or dedication to the environmental cause. During the Spring 1971 campaigns mayoral candidate Wes Wise, @itted against the choice of the usually victorious Citizen Charter ssociation, ran on a platform which considered the environmental issue second only to law and order. After Mr. Wi.se's victory, he followed through with his concern for the environment.. On July 26, 1971 he appointed a 3-man Council committee to study the feasibility of creating a City Environmental Quality Board, with the suggestions that it have approximately 8 members__@ - including I high school and I college student (his campaign had urged' greater participation-in government by young people), at least 2 from industry, and the remainder from the general public--and that it be 11strictly an advisory one." After receivi.ng assistance from the City Manager's office, on September 13, 1971 this study committee reported its recommendations. It supported the establishment' of a 15-member committee with the membership being "drawn from those in the city' with useful knowledge and expert-ise, e.g., Architects, Planners, Landscape Architects, Engineers, Medical Societies, Home Builders, Real Estate, Professionals, Industry, Environmental Organizations, League 'of.Women Voters, A.A.U.W., High School Students, College Students." The members' term of office would cease on June 1, 1972 upon completion,of.their report. The Committee would have had eight and one-half months if the Council acted promptly on the recom- mendations of the City Manager's staff, which would serve as their staff. The scope of their work was broad in that the Committee was to develop and submit "a recommended city-wide environmental policy with consideration 269 of the specific categories and concern of water (pollution and thermal condition) quality, air pollution (including dust, odor and equipment emissions), noise pollution, visual Pollution, open space, land use, population, solid waste pollution." The report continued, "The pursuit of this assignment would involve the following: 1. Assessment or environmental preservation action and improve- ments accomplished or in progress. 2. Identification of instances where environmental improvements could be made. 3. Inventory and documentation of community environmental prob- lems, ranking them in order of severity of effects on residents. 4. Identification of needs for: a) research, experimentation and expanded special environ- mental projects; b) planning strategies; c) programs for public information 5. Definition of an appropriate city role in the solution of environmental problems. 6. Submiss-ion of recommendations for new and additional ordinances and regulations for environmental improvements. 7. Development of recommended changes in city procedures, programs, or activities that contribute to our environmental problem. 8. Suggestions as to means of creating an awareness of environ-,' mental problems throughout the community, and lastly, 9. Identification of opportunities for community cooperation, inter-agency cooperation and intergovernmental cooperation in programs to improve the environment." In addition, the Council committee noted it was prepared to offer a resolution to accomplish this and to nominate the 15 members of the committee. On September 27, 1971 the Council passed an ordinance virtually identical to the recommendation. But the resolution was not imple- mented - i.e., the appointments were not made. On January 3, 1972 the Council passed a new ordinance repealing the earlier one, adding a lOth objective: "Such other related matters that the Committee deems of benefit to the City Council in attacking the environmental problem of the City," giving it a 6-month life from the date of swearing in of a majority of the Committee, and increasing its size to 17 (including a Chairman and Vice-chairman). See Addendum b . On March 1, 1972 thirteen of the members were sworn in,'and the Committee was ready to function.- The delay between the creation of the City Council's committee to study the feasibility of a Committee on Environmental Quality and the swearing in of this citizen advisory group was more than seven months. Speculation about the delay centered on the difficulties involved in agreeing on the appointees, although other causes may 270 have contributed, such as the press of higher-priority matters. The size escalated from Mayor Wise's suggestion of 8,to the City Council committee's suggestion of 15,to the final selection of 17. One source speculated that the delay came, in part, from the Council's desire to 'avoid conflict. Extensive negotiation occurred over the appointment of the only.black as'Committee Vice-Chairman; when the Initial choice declined to serve because of'the press of his other activities, there was some delay until' a second black man could be named as his substitute as Vice-Chairman. The political sensitivity of the task of naming the Committee may also be..seen In the fact that. only 5 or 6 of the 30-40 names by.the Planning Department were eventually appointed.* Additional speculation about the delay suggested that the Planning Department staff, which served as t he staff for the Committee, was busy with other activities and so the entire project was delayed. It is interestihg*to note, however, that the Committee received a 52-page staff report from them entitled, ."Environmental lssuesl,in Dallas: A Preliminary Report," dated October 1971, suggesting that an earlier start for the Committee was anticipated. This report included a description of current environmental conditions in Dallas, a statement on existing legal tools, a description of the relevant public agencies that might be helpful to the committee, a brief list of the most active*environmental groups, and an,out,line of the significant problems the committee might examine. Appendices included a description of the physical landscape; a summary of relevant local, state, and federal laws in the environmental field; alist of names and addresses of city, county, regional ' state, and federal agencies with environmental responsibilities; a list of 59 local organizations concerned with environment; and finally a Hst of environmental experts at local and nearby uniVersities. -.The tomposition-of the initial Committee could be classified in a number of ways. Classifying them by environmental advocacy, one source who was interviewed during our field visit felt that only four members could be considered environmentalists (i.e., had played an active role In environmental organizations or had publicly expressed strong environmental views). If classified according to "minority" status, four were women, one was black, one was Chicano, and eleven were white males., According to occupation, two were students, two were associated with Universities, two were housewives, two were in the construction or building industry, one was a small businessman, and eight were professionals such as engineers, lawyers, physician, CPA, architect. *The low proportion of.Planning Department "nominees" selected may be interpreted as, a sign that staff.does not dominate the Council rather than a sign of the political sensitivity of the task. 271 Since the Committee was sworn in March 1. 1972,it was supposed to go out of existence on September 1, 1972. But.in August 1972, the Committee requested an extension of its term, and the Council agreed, setting June 30, 1973 as the deadline the Committee was to conclude its mission. The Committee, despite its limited tenure under the enabling legislation, began slowly. This -might have been expected considering its broad focus and its diverse membership which purposely contained both environmentalists and representatives of the business interests. The leadership style of the chairman, which stressed consensus, may also have contributed to the slow start. With the assistance of the 3 staff members from the Department of Planning and Urban Development, the Committee distributed a questionnaire to the various departments involved in the environment which asked them for their: 1) accomplishments to date, 2) possible future improvements, 3) list of environmental problems, 4) needs for research, 5) planning strategies, 6) public information needs, and 7) general comments. They also began receiving oral testimony from various department heads. The replies of the departments indicated a broad range of perceptions on the city's environmental problems. There appeared to be a general consensus amongthe respondents that their own department had accomplished a great deal and did not need any additional help. This contributed to a distrust of the information supplied by the city staff. A number of the Committee members felt the departments were giving "biased" responses in that they were self-protective as well as lacking criticism of other departments. There was some reported resistance from departments with some distrust for the role of the Planning Department in this project. The Committee also solicited the views of environmental activists in Dallas as well as regional, State, and Fed 'eral agencies familiar with the city's problems. They also sought information from 19 other cities in the nation that they knew had utilized citizen environmental commissions. The quantity and quality of the responses varied. For example, only 48 of the 200-300 questionnaires to local groups were returned and these varied from very general comments to some very detailed responses. As part of their efforts to become informed, two public hearings were held. The first was an afternoon meeting and the second (held a week later) was an evening meeting. Speakers were limited to a five-minute oral presentation before questioning, but no limit was placed on the length of any written statements. The focus of the presentations was on the major environmental problems of Dallas, and potential solutions to them. Participation was low - only eleven appeared at the first meeting and twenty-one at the second. It is not clear whether this reflected contentment with the environment in Dallas, or merely a lack of organized interest in the environment, suspicion of ' citizen advisory groups, or poor organizational effort by the Committee (i.e., publicity, timing, and location of the hearings - e.g., one suggestion 272 made subsequently by a Commi'ttee.mernber was to hold the hearings in the neighborhoods as the Planning Department has done on its Comprehensive Plan Development rather than a single central location). The Committee is currently in its final phase - preparing its report for the City Council which was due June 30, 1973. A completeevaluation of the Committee cannot be made until the report has been made and reviewed by the Council. Several alternative paths were suggested by the participants and observers interviewed almost a year after the Committee began its work. It has been noted that the'rec'ommended size for the Committee grew from the Mayor's suggestion of eight, to a City Managers' staff recommendation of "9, 11, or 15," to the eventual size of 17. Some felt a city of Dallas' size needs a still larger committee; it might be harder to manage, but it would provide a greater pool of,talent from which to draw the real workers, as well as enabling a greater division of labor in the formation of subcommittees. Some consideration was given to the term of office. A temporary committee scheduled to go out of existence when its report was presented, was the choice made. The arguments apparently rai 'sed included the amount of structure already present in the fragmented field of environmental management, and the cost, but there was also a fear that a permanent body might be a continuing source of citizen pressure. Certainly the originally prescribed six-month term of office,was too brief to expect the fulfillment of the broad charge given to the Committee. The staff for the Committee came from the Planning Department. An alternate source would be for the Committee to recruit its own staff. Although this would be more likely to avoid the distrust of the staff that arose in Dallas, it is also very time-consuming and is likely to result in a staff that is not as intimately acquainted with the machinery (formal and informal) of the City Hall political process. Similarly, although an independent staff would eliminate any misper- ceptions that the group was merely advising a single department rather than the City Council, the same goal could be accomplished by using the staff available to the City Council (i.e., the City Manager's staff). The Committee's role was a source of concern. The Committee, at the outset,.seemed to want a role beyond merely recommending goals and priorities. They recognized the political reality that how a program is legislated and administered will have a greater impact on the environment than a mere statement of policy objectives. Their fear of only being window-dressing, and their distrust of staff that emerged from their early experience may have contributed to it. The occasional push from the Planning Department staff to endorse some of their previous work (specifically their sign ordinance efforts), and their own con- cerns for the environment (which led them to criticize the Council for endorsing the Trinity River project before the EIS for it was released),' as well as a too-human tendency for ego-building may also have con- tributed to their desire for a broader role. 273 TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY A unique regional governmental body, the Trinity River Authority, was created by the State of Texas to govern the development of the Trinity River Basin. Today, the Basin includes 17,845 square miles of valley that feed the Trinity River, 6.4% of Texas' land area, 20% of Texas' population, and 25% of Texas' present economy. The conservation and use of the water resources of the Trinity River Basin involve an effective working partnership between the state's largest metropolitan areas: Dallas-Ft. Worth. and Houston. Efforts to improve th.e,Trinity River.Basin go. back to the 1870's. In recent decades, a major step forward occured in 1955, when the Texas Legislature created the Trinity River Authority of Texas. The Authority, known as TRA, was given three principal duties: --to master plan the orderly development of the entire Basin's soil and water resources. -to provide local participation in federal projects when required by the Congress, as in the case of navigation and flood control. --to provide services to people within the TRA territory. TRA is a state agency and a political subdivision of State government. Its territory includes all or part of the 17 counties which are adjacent to those reaches of the river which will be developed for navigation. TRA is governed by a 24-member Board of Directors appointed by the Governor with the approval of the Senate. By law, 3 directors are from Tarrant County, 4 from Dallas County, I from each of the other 15 counties, and 2 are appointed at-large. The directors serve 6-year terms. Since TRA's*creation, the Directors have declined to accept the compensation and expenses to which they are entitled. Since its inception, the Trinity River Authority ha5 been involved in a variety of activities. For the purpose of this st.udy, four projects are analyzed: the development o'f a master plan, pollution control program, the development of a Basin Water Quality Manage- ment Plan, and the Trinity RI.ver Canal Project. In 1958, the TRA completed a river basin master plan whi.c,h was the fi,rst of its kind in the United States. 'It was adopted,after.16 public hearings held throughout the Basi6,-wlth these basic components: --the multiple-purpose channel for'navigation, flood control and recreation. --the construction of 49.major dams resulting in 49 major lakes for water.supply, flood control and recreation. --the construction of 5 more floodway and levee systems, which wi I I solve the flood problems in the cities. The master plan adopted and enlarged upon 'the initial soil conservation program by providing for more rural flood control dams 274 to keep polluting silt out of the river. The crux of the rural flood control program is the application of sound soil conservation practices and land and range management programs to over 8,200,000 acres of land in the upper Trinity. The implementation of the major projects is providing many water- oriented recreational opportunities for the growing populations of both the Trini'ty River Basin and the Houston metropolitan area. These opportunities include boating, swimming, canoeing, sail'ing, camping, picnicking,'or just the quiet enjoyment of beautiful waterfront landscape made accessible through river improvement programs. After-adoption of the master plan in 1958, TRA began implementing the unfinished parts of the plan. By selling over $113 million- dollars of revenue bonds and by obtbin-ing millions of dollars of federal funds in the form of construction assistance, grants and loans, TRA has achieved these results without any local taxes. A second activity'of TRA has been in water pollution control programs. There are two types of pollutioh in the Trini-ty River: 1) algae caused by the discharge of raw sewage or improperly treated effluent from sewage treatment plants and other illegally discharged pollutants; and, 2) silt caused by soil eros ion. Before the 'creation of federal and state pollution control agencies, the TRA master plan took aim at the Trini-ty''s-pollution'problem and initialte&in Texas the regiona'I sewerage system concept as a positive solution to the problem in urban areas. This concept is a workable alternative to the contamination of these areas by numerous small sewage treatment plants that are not4conomically operated nor properly maintained. TRA's fir*st step forward in cleaning up the Trinity was the Central Sewerage-System, which serves 11 cities. If this system had not been built, over 40 small plants would be scattered throughout this area and the river would be more polluted than it'is. Today this one plant is treating the sewage of those 11 cities and discharging into the'Tri'n'ity an effluent that meets,the State's minimum standards@ Ultimately,''it will.'be expanded to@treat the sewage of over a million people. TRA's@ secdnd'step forw ard'in cleaning up'the Trinity River'was the construction of the Ten Mile Creek System, which now serves five cities and which will ultimately treat the wastes of over 350,000 people.' When this system became operational, seven small substandard plants were eliminated. The effluent discharge of this plant is of better quality than required by the State's minimum standards. TRA's third step forward in cleaning up the Trinity was the construction of the Walker-Calloway Branches outfall line project'that eliminated three more small, substandard plants. 275 TRA's fourth step forward in keeping the Trinity clean was the implementation of a septic tank control program along 460 miles of shoreline at Lake Livingston. Percolation tests are used to deter- mine if the land at a given point is suitable for the installation of a septic tank system. In 1972, TRA initiated a third activity, a basin-wide water quality management.study. This study, requiring some 18 months, will be the basis for a water quality management program which will establish the machinery for cleaning up the Trinity River and keeping it clean. This $643,300 effort is being partially funded by the Environmental Protection Agency at the level of $321,650. The Texas Water Quality Board is providing $185,000 and the remaining portion of the funds are coming from the Trinity River Authority and other local sources. 'Special recognition should be given to local contributions made by the Amon G. Carter Foundation which donated $25,000, the Hoblitzer Foundation which donated $25,000, and the Trinity Improvement Association which has contributed $50,000. Since receipt of grant funds for the purpose of making this water quality management plan, the management has employed several staff members whose work is ' solely related to the development of this Basin Plan. These staff members are currently engaged in various work activities in connection with this Plan development. The Basin Water Quality Management Plan involves the establishment of the basin water quality goals and the water quality management plan that will assure the accomplishment of these goals. A-number of tasks such as those listed below will provide the basis for this Plan development. 1. Identify the available water resources of the basin. 2. Identify the water needs. 3. Identify the current and future waste loads, 4. Determine water quality standards for assuring various 'water uses 5. Determine the cost-effective plan for satisfying water qual ity standards. 6. Recommend implementation schedule for construction of proposed facilities. 7. Determine cost estimates for recommended pollution abatement facilities' 8. Develop financial plan to provide funding needed for imple- mentation of pollution abatement facilities. 9. Develop jurisdictional plan that will indicate implementation and operation responsibilities. 10. Consider the environmental impact of the proposed Water Quality Management Plan. A fourth activity of TRA was the development of a multi-purpose channel for flood control, economic growth, low cost transportation, recreation, and preservation of natural areas. The project plans 276 call for the construction of 16 channel dams and 20 locks and the bypassing of 184 bows and bends to shorten the river's length from 548 to 363 miles. A shorter, straighter river is vital to both flood control and navigation. In June 1973, voters in the TRA were asked to approve the issuance of $150,000,000 of river improvement tax bonds by the Trinity River Authority and to ratify the power given the authority to levy an ad valorem tax not to exceed 15@ per $100 of assessed valuation on property within the boundaries of the Authority, which generally constitutes the area of 17 counties which lie with4n the Trinity River Watershed. The $150,000,000 of funds from the sale of the bonds were used to provide the non-federal participation on certain improvements to the river basin authorized by the Congress in 1965 and for which the Corps of Engineers since that date has invested approximately $7,619,000 in advance engineering and design@work. President Nixon recommended the expenditure of an,additional $1,086,000 for this work in the coming fiscal year. Although these improvements are expected to be funded for construction primarily with federal funds, there are certain requirements for participation by non-federal public interests. The Trinity River Authority has the* responsibility for providing the non-federal funds required on certain of these improvements, and with- the approaching completion-of the advance engineering and design work the time Is at hand for the Authority to take those steps necessary for providing its share of this financing. Current cost estimates for these features are $1,351,100,000 of federal funds and $312,96o,ooo of non-federal funds. Of the non-federal funds required, more than one-half can be funded by the Authority through financing other than the use of tax supported bonds. Only $150,000,000 of tax supported bonds will be required for use by the Authority in meeting the requirements necessary.to implement this program. However, voters turned down the bonds for environmental reasonsand thus, at least temporarily,killed the project. UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE SEWERAGE PLAN In January 1969, the North Central Texas Council of Gove'rnments (NCTCOG) contracted for a p)a n of a comprehensive sewerage system for their region covering 10 countie's. The study area, however, extended beyond the boundaries of NCTCOG and focused upon the Upper Trinity River Basin which included portions of an additional 11 counties.* The area of the study covered 11,000 square miles which is larger than several states and its 2.7 million population,exceeds that of a number of states. *One of these counties has subsequently become a member of NCTCOG. 277 I The need for a comprehensive sewerage planifor,the river basin can best be demonstrated by pointing out that@durlng the dry period, the flow in the Upper Trinity River and,its tributaries is more than 90% treated effluent (or discharge) from existing sewage treatment plants. In many parts of the river BOD -(biochemical oxygen demand) levels do not meet the standards established by the state and federal governments. Basically, the 18-month study recommended a limited consolidation into 6 joint@systems and a gradual phasing out of the other 47 sewage treatment plants in Dallas and Tarrant Counties (the latter includes, Ft. Worth) and in portions of 7 other couniies., The 6 systems are currently in existence or under construction and are operated by 4 entities: Dallas, Ft. Worth, Trinity River Authority, and the cities of Richardson and Garland (the latterto be operated by the North Texas Municipal Water District). Eighteen months later (December 1971) another consultant's report, recommending a management and finance program for the system,,was submitted and approved by the Executive Board of NCTCOG. The 6 joint systems would be established and operational relationships stipulated through the North Central Texas Regional Water Quality compact which would be drafted by officials of the affected cities and the joint systems operators. The compact would spell out the duties and responsibilities of the various levels of government involved,in- cluding NCTCOG's 21 member Water Development Council, and would provide overall guidance and direction for the Regional Sewerage Plan. The 21 member Council would be composed of 6 representatives from the two Dallas systems (3 selected by the operators, and 3 nominated by the System Customer Council with confirmation of the system operator), 4 from the Ft. Worth system (2 operators and 2 customers), 3 from the other systems-(] operator and 2 customers); these 17 members plus 4 from the region at-large would be appointed by,the Executive Board of NCTCOG. Of major interest to the non-Texas reader may be the organizational form recommended and the alternative forms considered and rejected by the consultant firm hired to develop the Management and Finance Program for the Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. The report written by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company and published in December 1971 lists a number of advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives, and the remainder of this section is drawn primarily. from that report: Upper Trinity River Basin Comprehensive Sewerage Plan: Management and Finance Program !(Vo-lume 3). The 8 organizational forms considered were: 1. Private corporation 2. Coordinated joint systems 3. County system 4. Coordinated joint systems-with regional finance 5. Centralized administrdtion-and contract sewerage operations 278 @6. Regional single-purpose authority 7. Regional multi-purpose authority 8. Regironal multi-purpose government The report lists a number of criteria or value judgments upon which the alternatives were measured and evaluated. Several of'the criteria are broad and general enough so that they are of limited utili-ty In differentiating between the alternative organizational forms-- for'example, the first criterion mentioned by the report--or are not related to the organizational principle but rather to the subsequent, detailed arrangements--such as the sixth or seventh criterion. The criteria are: 1. Assure adherence to federal and state water quali-ty standards 2. Facilitate comprehensive planning for water.qual.ity and provide planning interface with other regional functions 3. Respond to t.he w.i,l] of the people 4. Control the organization.,.1ocall.y 5. Utilize an existing governmental entity 6. Establish a definite purpose and set of objectives 7. Assign authority,commensurate with responsibility 8. Require a minimum of legislative change or action 9. Respond to change as appropriate The analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each organizattonal form was not restricted to,this list; nor did it refer to all of the criteria on-the list--only 4 of these value statements appear to differentiate the various alternatives (2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 8th: facilitate comprehensive planning, respond to the will of the people, utilize existing governmental entities, and require a minimum of legislative action). 1. Private corporation. The major advantage cited by the consultant's report was that this option represented free enterprise activity, and in addition it would be free of the financial and personnel restraints placed on governments (i.e., no debt or bonding limitations, and no civil service regulations).. Financially, it would mean that no governmental agency had to be concerned about financing. But on the other hand, private corporations were unlikely to be able to raise the large amount of capital necessary to build the expanded facilities@; in addition, it would have to pay higher costs for the capital because of i'ts non-tax exempt financing status. The most serious disadvantages, however,'appear to be the lack of responsiveness to the will of the people and the difficulty of coordinating this private effort with other areas of comprehensive planning. 2. Coordinated joint systems. This was the option recommended by the report. Its major advantages were that little or no change from current structural conditions (organizational or financial) were needed, and that the systems could still operate independently and 279 at the will of their respective governing boards (i.e., "no regional 'super' government would be,required"--nor any additional entity, for that matter). In addition, several financial advantages of this organizational arrangement were noted: lower interest rates because of their use of tax-exempt bonds and because they would enjoy higher bond ratings due to their past history of successful operation. But the consultants listed several disadvantages. This organizational option would require increased coordination since four separate entities would have the responsibility for operation. Second, regional comprehensive planning and development would be inhibited since compliance would be dependent upon the willingness and cooperation of the entities. Third, since there would be four separate operating entities, the burden of enforcement of water quality standards (which would be the responsibility of regional authorities) would be increased. Fourth, additional legislation would be necessary to absorb or serve the cities currently served by the 47 plants to be phased out, as well as to increase the authority of NCTCOG and its Water Development Council to implement the plan. The separate financial structures also created disadvantages. The separate entities may have varying needs for capital for expansion, as well as varying costs to acquire that capital, resulting in rates for service varying throughout the region. 3. County systems. If each county were to operate its own systems, then no new governmental entity would be required, and there wo.uld be uniformity of service and rates throughout the county. In addition, the county's tax-exempt status and financial strength would result in lower interest rates. On the other hand, coordination between the counties and with the rest of the region would still be needed. This was reinforced by the report's comment that drainage basins do not follow county lines. In addition, the counties lacked the experience of operating large and complex sewerage systems. Additional legislation would be needed to permit the counties to serve areas outside of its jurisdiction. 4. Coordinated joint systems with regional financing. This organization- al arrangement involves a regional administrative authority with policy-making and financial functions supervising contracts with the current operator of the sewerage systems. This would have the advantage of having planning accomplished at the regional level, while not requiring extensive changes in organization since the current. entities would continue to operate the systems under contract. The financial disadvantages of the recommended system--i.e., differing rates--would be overcome; the outstanding debt acquired could be prorated to all participants, and cost allocations could be simplified. 280 This arrangement still permits the use of lower interest bearing tax-exempt municipal bonds. In addition, the regional concept meets EPA and HUD guidelines for grants to finance construction. `Its larger size would facilitate use of revenue bonds, and with federal grants would reduce the need for tax bond considerations with their referendum requirements and debt limitations--i.e., taxing power would not be mandatory. In addition, regional pooling of 'revenue would create greater financial flexibility through better investment opportunities for idle funds as well as facilitating "pay-as-you-go" financing. These advantages of regional financing were repeated for each of the alternatives subseqUently described. But this system did have disadvantages. The fragmentation associated with four different operators still required continual coordination. New legislation would be needed elther to create a 'new regional authority, or to expand NCTCOG's authority to include financing. And a complex system of accounting and reporting might be needed in order to satisfy the needs of the authority and the separate operating entities. Regional bodies usually have less favorable bond ratings (and'hence must pay higher interest rates) because their bond ratings are dependent upon the bond ratings of the individual cities contract- ing for services from-them, and because they usually lack operating experience. This disadvantage associated with the financial structure of regional organizations was repeated for each of the regional alternatives subsequently considered by the consultants. 5. Centralized administration and contract sewerage operations. The major advantages listed by the consultant's report for this organization- al arrangement is that regional planning is made possible, through the centralized regional authority, and coordination of activities is made possible through a contract with a single entity for the operation of the entire system. The financial advantages of a regional authority noted above were repeated. The selection of the single entity to operate the entire system was cited as a difficult political question and a major disadvantage of this alternative. in addition, it was argued, the amount of effort necessary to coordinate the sewer systems with other regional function@s "could be unjustified and more costly," especially since the regional authority's control over the"sewerage system would be limited by the terms of the contract. The use of a contract was also seen as a limitation upon the ability of the people to influence the operation of the system. But the recommended system (coordinated joint systems) with its appointed Water Development Council was not criticized for any inability of the people to influence the operation of the system. Another new argument was raised by the report at this point: since one of the existing operators would be awarded the contract for the entire system, it might serve its own residents better and neglect outlying regional customers. The report also listed the heed for legislative changes to broaden the existing regional organization and the financial disadvantage resulting from the@regional authority's lack of operating experience. 281 6. Regional single-purpose authority., A regional authority-- whether it was a single-purpose authority (.considered here), or a multi-purpose authority (see 7, below), or a Multi-purpoSe government (see 8, below), was viewed as having several advantages. First, there would be coordinated regional management'of the sewerage system. Second, there would be improved service to Its customers because of increased efficiency, uniform handling of service calls, better control of engineering standards for connecting services, and tighter control on industrial users. Although one may argue.that these improvements are more likely when there is a single operator, it is interesting to note this advantage was not cited for the single operating contract discussed above (i.e., in 5. "Centralized administration and contract sewerage operations"), nor Is it unlikely to occur in the recommended system (i.e., 2. "Coordinated,joint systems"), where it was not mentioned either. A single system was also seen as resulting in decreased administrative costs (although it was not mentioned as an advantage of a single contractor, nor as a disadvantage of the recommended system relying on four separate operating entities). To remind our reader, the financial advantages of regionalism noted above were cited here too., The disadvantages of a singl.e-purpose regional organization were seen as: the creation of a new governmental entity, the requirement of a new legislation, and the removal of control from local governmental juris@- dictions. The financial, disadvantage of regionalism in general was noted here too. 7. Regionai'multi-purpose authority. In addition to the three advantages of a regional single-purpose authority noted above, (coordinated regional management, improved,,service, decreased administrative costs), the greatest advantage for this organizational arrangement was-that such a group already exists in the region--I.e., the Trinity River Authority-- and no new entities or levels of government would be required. Financial advantages (and disadvantages) of regionalism were noted. The disadvantages of the alternative were described as follows: (P. IV-17) The major disadvantages are highli@ghted in that (1) local citizens may feel that they would have little, if an,@4 voice in the operation of the system and (2) no coordination 'would be required with other regional functions. The authority concept would utilize an appointed board and serve customers through contracts, local officials and citizens might perceive that the authority might not be responsive to their requests. 8. Regional multi-purpose government. A regional government would be able to coordinate sewerage with other governmental functions, while the accomplishments of improved service and reduced administrative costs (and coordination of sewerage systems management - although thiswas omitted from the report) would still occur. 282. Financial advantages and disadvantages are as noted in the previous sections on regional alternatives. The disadva 'ntages listed for a regio nal multi-purpose government are the same as for single-purpose regional authority (number 6 above): it would require an,.additional governmental entity, new legislation, and remove control from local government jurisdiction. The consultant's report wen 't on to discuss various alternate financial methods and cost allocation formulas, but these will not be discussed in this field report. The report conc *luded with a listing of factors that would be necessary in trying to gain the support of local and regional bodies. These were: (0 awareness of the problem, (2) acceptance of the regional plan, (3) leadership, (4) cooperation, (5) general concern for the water quality of the.region, (6) cost effectiveness, and.(7) interest in continued development of the Trinity River. Ecological Stud One of the accomplishments that the Planning Department points to with pride is its sponsorship and participation in an ecological study of the Pallas County area. When the task of reviewing Environmental Impact Statements was assigned to the Planning Department, it quickly became evident to them:that.they had no data bank from which to draw estimates of the environmental impacts of proposed projects. Their,subsequent budget included $25,000 for a study for an ecological data bank.. However, when they contacted several environmental consultants, their estimates for an appropriate study.design.ran from $200,000 to $300,000. However, another consultant, who had directed a routing study for Wisconsin Power.and Light Company which involved displaying ecological data on maps, agreed to do the study for the budgeted sum, providing the Planning Department did the date source search and coding (under.., the supervision of the consultant). The consultant would also be responsible for interpreting infrared maps, the modelling of tolerance levels, and the programming necessary to display the data on maps. The staff met with a panel of local environmental experts in a day-long seminar.,.:These.,Iocal experts identified critical data elements, weighed the *ir relative significance, and provided information on where to find the data. .,One important reason why the project could be completed within the.cost.restraints was that much of the data had been collected already by other agencies and the study had merely-to code it for its own use. Virtually all of the data we 're from secondary sources, although some.field,visits were made to collect some data. Important sources for information included United States Geological Service maps, infrared mapping from,the National.Aeronautics and Space Administration, Corps of Engineers, Sol] Conservation Service, Dallas Geological Society, and local experts. 283 Criteria were developed for the selection of variables to be included. These included: 1. Enable spatial relationship of information. 2. Enable recording of information for future use in impact quantification. 3. Enable value judgements to be placed upon systems and their sub-units. 4. Allow for the up-dating of the stored information. 5. Allow for the analys-is of information for multi-purpose planning. 6. Be feasible from an economic and time standpoint. 7. Enable in-house capability for carrying on the planning process. 8. Enable transfer of programs and methodology for on-going in- house operation. 9. Provide the complexity of data appropriate to the level of decision-making required. Data was collected on 32 natural resource variables and 3 measures of urbanization. The natural resources were part of 5 eco-systems; there were 5 zoological characteristics (e.g., Pileated Woodpecker habitat, complex wildlife areas), 10 botanical characteristics (e.g., unique botanical areas, natural and man-made marsh), 14 hydromorphic characteristics (e.g., flood plains, watersheds), I edaphic character- istic (i.e., 9 soil associations), and 2 geomorphic characteristics (i.e., 7 surface geology types, and fault lines). See Addendum c for the complete list of variables for which data was collected. In addition to the individua.1 variables, maps were also generated from them for 6 eco-systems (hydromorphic was subdivided into surface and sub-surface), and for 2 broader systems--the biotic (i.e., botanical and zoological) and abiotic. A number of other maps were also generated and will be discussed later. The data on these variables were collected for 10,000 grids or cells. .Although this seems large, it must be noted that the study area (Dallas County) was 900 square miles. The result is that each cell contained 61.8 acres--or to put it another way, each cell 'was 1/3 mile in length. This relatively large size was deemed appropriate, considering the scale of the data source maps and hence the efficiency of delineating and extracting the data, and the level of decision-making requiring the data to be collected. Despite the assurance tha,t quite a few devej@opments in Dallas exceed 62 acres, it seems that cells of such a large size limit the utility of the project. Once the data were collected, and interpreted and delineated (i.e., to fit the grid scale of the study), patte-rns were extracted (i.e., either the predominant pattern for a resource in a cell -was notod,-or-.- the proportion of the cell covered by the resource was calculated). The next step was to code these data; a numerical code was used on OCR (Optical Scanner Reader) forms. (The equipment used for the project included: one IBM 370 OS VS], five IBM 2402 Tape Drives, one IBM 1404 Printer, three IBM 2319 Disc Storage Devices, one IBM 2540 Card Reader Punch, and one IBM 1287 Optical Character Scanner.) The final step of the process-Involved producing maps for each of the variables. See Addendum d for sample maps. 284 In addition to indicating the predominance and location of these natural resources, a major eleme 'nt of the program is to indicate the sensitivity of these resource patterns to human impact. The con- sultant was responsible for the modeling that resulted in these estimates of tolerance, although judgments for some of the component factors were often made by the local experts. These maps of resource tolerance could then be combined under a variety of conditions or value assumptions. For instance, a map was produced which assumed that the preservation of each eco-system was of equal importance and hence indicated the tolerance of the area for development or human impact; a second map merely showed the areas where there was a multiplicity of ecological subsystems rather than their degree of tolerance; a third map assumed that the biotic component was twice as important as other components (they noted that the biotic community waseasier to identify and observe, and therefore could serve as a valuable indicator of the changes occurring in the ecological environment).' A fourth map utilized the urbanization data and therefore suggested (when combined with other data from the study) which areas were suitable for urban development. The ecology project, according to the report prepared by the con- sultant entitled Dallas Eco-Study, was viewed as performing three basic functions: (1) it identified, quantified, and mapped the extent and location of 32 natural resources that are part of the'Dallas County ecological sys tem, (2) it stored and displayed the data on the relative tolerance of the ecological systems to human impacts, and (3) it provided a mechanism for the development of models to evaluate the impact of projects on natural resources. A number of other functions or uses of the study could be noted, too: 1. Several members of the Planning Department now have an intimate knowledge 'of the ecological environment of the Dallas area by virtue of the in-house effort devoted to the project by the Planning Department--two men worked virtually full-time' on the proJect-for a year, and another'two were involved for .8 monthsj,-@Jor a total of 40 man-months. 2. The Planning Depa-r-tment has developed .- its-skills, by its so that it can carry out much participation on the proJ-ec-t_1__ of the program envisioned for Ph *ase 11 or even later develop- ments; Phase 11 includes expanding-0e system to include so- called "cultural" variables such as census data, historic Ian'dmarks, land use, and land values; subsequent phases may. involve updating the data, or even revising them for a smaller grid system. 3. A mechanism has been developed that may be useful in monlto@i-ng the degradation of the ecological environment--or more optimistically, the protection or enhancement of this portion of man's environment. 285 4. The results of the project may be useful for studies of general routing (e.g., regional transit) or siting of public facilities. But it must be noted that specific or detailed planning or evaluat,ion cannot be done because of the large size of each cell (approximately 62 acres). 5. An instrument has been developed that will prove useful as an environmental education tool--e.g., its role as part of the environment curriculum to be developed for Dallas schools on an experimental basis under a recent grant from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 6. It has served as a vehicle for enlisting community participation. In addition to the efforts of the consultant and the Planning Department staff, approximately 25 volunteers in groups of three to four worked twice a week for six months (or approximate- ly 2-3 man-months of effort) coding the data. Environmental Quality Standards and Enforcement In discussing environmental quality standards and associated enforce- ment processes, a logical starting point would be to analyze the state agencies and their role, followed by an analysis of Dallas' activities. The focus here is on air and water pollution. In 1965, the State of Texas created the Texas Air Control Bo 'ard as a semi-autonomous arm of the State Department of Health. The governor appoints a nine member Board, including an engineer, a licensed physician, a representative from industry, a municipal government representative, an agricultural engineer, and the remaining four from the general public. A primary goal of the Board is the development of a general plan for the control of air pollution by adopting and promulgating rules and regulations governing air pollution. In addition, it directs the activities of the Texas Air Control Program, administered by the State Department of Health, and includes investigating possible sources of air pollution, holding hearings on complaints for litigation through the Attorney General's Office, and seeking compliance with its regulat.ions. The Board has established a standard for particulate matter at 55 micrograms/cubic meter, as compared with the federal primary (the level at which human health is affected) and secondary (the level at which effects are felt on "human welfare values") standards of 75 micrograms/ cubic meter and 60 micrograms/cubic meter. The State Board operates regional offices in cities without air pollution program, and this is especially the case with the suburbs in Dallas County. In the City of Dallas, the Air Pollution Division, of the Health Depart- ment was treated in 1966. In 1968, the city council adopted an ordinance for the initiation of an enforcement program. At the present timei the Air Pollution Control Section has 24 permanent employees, with twelve of these being added during the last eighteen months. Those 286 employees Involved in enforcement process go every six months for train- Ing programs and examination by the Texas Air'Pollutil,on Control Board. The Air Pollution Control Section has an operatin.g budget of,$269,006 with 50% of the revenues from the City's general fund and the remain- Ing 50% from a,federal grant' For*the purpose of this discussion, the functions will be artifically divided into monitoring' and enfdrcement activities. The monitoring is generally conducted on a routine sight inspection or surveillance. If 'a question does arise, a . sample is collected and tested in the laboratory for elements other than hydrocarbons. For monitoring purposes the City i.t divided into f'ive sections with two inspection teams conducting the inspection. In addition., the Section monitors the overall air quality and issues warnings, if necessary, as well as 24-hour forecasts. The air pollution index combines two factors (particulate matter and N02) into a numerical scale: 0 - 30 Light 31 - 60 Moderate 61 - 90 Heavy 91 - 100 Severe 100 above Alert It should be pointed out that 85-90% of the air pollution is caused by the automobile, but the Section does not get involved at all in auto emission'standards and enforcement. The enforcement function of the Section is'oriented toward close cooperation between government and industry. If voluntary compliance. is not achieved after continual surveillance, the Section has taken industries vio*lating the air quality standard to court. At the.present time, there have been 18 convictions'with fines of generally $100, . four cases were @di smisseId, and two cases are presently in the district courts. Jhe fines while not significant in terms of monetary value,,. have been'made. It is estimated that since 1966, industry in Dallas has spent $2.5 million for equipment and a.n equal amount for maintenance and operation of air pollution control systems. The' Air Pollution Control-.Section points out that the annual mean level"of particulate matter has declined from 106 micrograms/cubic meter in 1967-1968 to 78 micrograms/cubic meter in 1970-1971. At the-present time,,there is minimal information regarding gaseous. polluti@nts.. In 1967,@the State of Texas passed the Texas Water Quality Act, succeeding the Texas Water.Polluti,on Control Board. TheWater Quality Act outlines'a statewide control system to coordinate all water quality control*programs of 'various state agencies and local governments with. those of the Federal government i' The Water Quality,Board requires cities ,over 5,000 to have a water quality surveillance program with a laboratory and the development of a plan describing whatthe city can do and is doing regarding the problem of surface runoff. In addition., the Board does maintain regional offices. 287 The City of Dallas has had an industrial waste.ordinance since 1958 and is in the process of upgrading the industrial waste standards in keeping with federal guidelines. These new standards are aimed at better pre-treatment by industry and reclamation of some materials that would otherwise reach downstream. The primary sources of water pollution are: --industrial wastes -.-insufficiently treated sanitary sewage --insufficiently treated storm sewage --septic tank overflow --agricultural runoff conaining chemical fertilizers and pesticides The Water Department is responsible for industrial waste water dis- charges. In addition, there is the Water Quality Surveillance Program adminis- tered by the Water Quality Section of the Health Department. The Water Quality Section has a staff of twelve persons, five of which are responsible for discharges into creeks and storm drains and for monitor- ing discharges under permits from the Texas Water Quality Board. The enforcement programs have stressed cooperation. Dallas has little heavy industry except for concrete and,cement manufacturing firms. Out of some two hundred cases, one or two have been referred to the Texas Water Quality Board with accompanying threats of legal action. At the present time, no cases have been taken to court. Water Reclamation Research Center As an integral part of their waste water program, the City of Dallas has established the Water Reclamation Research Center to conduct research on a possible prototype, advanced waste water treatment facility. The idea started in 1965 when it became evident that at some future date, Dallas might be forced to reuse its water resources. By 1967, a plan was finalized and application to the Federal Water Quality Office for federal assistance was made. The purposes of the Research Center was to develop design criteria and construction programming to upgrade plant effluent. The demonstration plant consisted of a building t@o house' instrumentation, chemical feeding equipment, and filtration units. In addition, the facility included: --two aeration basins and a final settling basin for studying the activated sludge process --a solid contact upflow basin for studying coagulation and clarification --a chlorine contact basin for studying disinfection of the waste water. The plan proposed the study of the following items: 288 --lime assisted phosphate precipitation followed by activated sludge treatment and filtration --activated sludge treatment with and without sedimentation followed by coagulation and lime-assisted phosphate precipi- tation-and filtration --phosphate removal by activated sludge --combinations of trickling filters with activated sludge treatment. Construction on the Research Center began in 1969 and was completed in April 1970. For two years a rigorous research program was under- taken in cooperation with Texas A & M University which resulted in 98% removal of BOD and suspended solids. The program for the pilot demon- stration plant cost $850,000 of which 56% was from the federal grant and 44% local funds. The accompanying research laboratory also cost approximately $850,000 with 65% of the funds from federal'grants and 35% from local funds. By June 1972, the Research Center had success- fully completed its research on the removal of BOD and suspended solids. To continue research design for water resource reuse, the Research Center is presently engaged in viral research, an area where little' is known on the effect of waste water treatment on viruses. SUMMARY The City of Dallas does not appear to have as severe environmental problems as other major urban centers. Its geographical location, natural'environment, and clean industries aid programs in improving environmental quality. Dallas and its regional governmental-bodles have developed many diverse environmental programs for environmental. management. The development of an' ecosystem inventory s a .major innovation which could be followed by other municipalities. The research effort on waste water treatment could help municipalities faced with similar water,resource problems. 289 ADDENDUM a. ORDINANCE NO. 13113 An Ordinance amending Section 35-66 of Article Vill of Chapter 35 (Dallas Plumbing Code) of the@1960 Revised Code of Civil and Criminal Ordinances of the City of Dallas, Texas; Providing for the regulation of the discharge of industrial wastes and domestic sewage; Providing for a Savings Clause; Providing for a fine not to exceed Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00); and, Providing.for an effective date. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS: SECTION 1. That Section 35-66 of Article Vill of Chapter 35 of the 1960 Revised Code of Civil and Criminal Ordinances of the City of Dallas, Texas, is hereby amended so as to hereafter read as follows: I "Section 35-66. Industrial Wastes. All industrial wastes or domestic sewage being discharged to a storm drain, storm sewer, drainage ditch, or water course within the city limits of the City of Dallas shall discharge to and be connected with the sanitary sewer system of the City of Dallas. Any exception to the above will-be with the approval of the Director of Public Works, and the Director of Public Health, and with the permission of the Texas Water Quality Board to discharge such industrial waste to a storm drain, storm sewer, drainage ditch, or water course within the city limits of the City of Dallas. 'Wastes which are detrimental to the public sewer system or are detrimental to the functioning of the sewage treatment plan, shall be treated as provided in Section 35-102 or as may be required to comply with other wastes that are prohibited in whole or in part as is specifically detailed in Section 49-100 of Article III of Chapter 49 of the Revised Code of Civil and Criminal Ordinances of the City of Dallas, Texas." SECTION 2. That Chapter 35 (Dallas Plumbing Code) of the 1960 Revised Code of Civil.and Criminal Ordinances of the City of Dallas, Texas, as heretofore amended, save and except as amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. That this Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and final publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dallas, and it is accordingly so ordained. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Passed: November 2, 1970 Correctly Enrolled: November 2, 1970 N. ALEX BICKLEY, CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: Harold G. Shank City Secretary By: David W. Howell Assistant City Attorney 290 ADDENDUM b. ORDINANCE NO. 13489 An Ordinance creating the COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; providing a term for which the Committee shall exist; providing a staff to assist the Committee; generally prescribinq the scope and,purposes of its activities; providing for a report and,recommendations to the City Council; repealing Ordinance No. 13386; and providing an effective date. WHEREAS, in its report to the City Council, the Committee to Study the Feasibility of Creating an Environmental Quality Board for the City of Dallas, as a result of its deliberations, has recommended the establishment of a committee on environmental quality; and WHEREAS, a broad policy framework is needed to guide City Departments and officials toward coordinated action to assist in solving the problems of air,water and noise pollution; Now, Therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS: SECTION 1. CREATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. There is hereby created a committee to be known as the COMMITTEE ON ENVIRON- MENTAL QUALITY, hereinafter called "the Committee", which shall be an advisory body and shall be composed of seventeen members, including a Chairman, Vice Chairman, and fifteen other,members; the Chairman, Vice Chairman and members to be appointed by the City Council. The members shall serve without pay and shall adopt such rules and regulations as they may deem best for the governing of their actions, proceedings and deliberations and shall set the time and place of their meetings. The members of the Committee shall be citizens of the City and shall be selected from among the following groups: Architects, planners, landscape architects, engineers, medical societies, home builders, real estate, professionals, industry, environmental organizations, League of Women Voters,American Association of University Women, high school students, college students and others that the City Counci1 shall determine. SECTION 2. TERM OF SERVICE.-The members of the Committee shall serve for a term to expire six (6) months from the date of the swearing in of a majority of the Committee, at which time the Committee shall have completed its assignment and shall present a report and briefing to the Council. The City Council may, by resolution, extend the term of the members of the Committee beyond said date upon a determination of the necessity for such extension. 291 SECTION 3. STAFF. The Committee shall be aided in its work by the staff of the C7-ty Manager's Office and by the staffs of appropriate Departments of the City. SECTION 4. SCOPE OF ACTIOTIES. The purposes, aims and scope of'the activities of the Committee herein created, shall be generally the. development and submission of a recommended City-wide environmental policy, with consideration of specific categories and environmental con- cerns including, water (pollution and thermal condition).quality, air pollution (including dust, odor and equipment emissions), noise pollution, visual pollution, open space, land use, population, and soli'd waste pollution. The pursuit of such assignment by the Committee shall involve the following: (1) Assessment of environmental preservation action and improvements accomplished or in progress. (2) Identification of instances where environmental improvements can be made. (3) Inventory and documentation of community environmental problems, ranking them in order of severity of effects on residents. (4) Identification of needs for the following: (a) Research, experimentation and expanded special environmental projects; Planning strategies; (c) Programs for public information. (5) Definition of an appropriate City role in the solution of environmental problems. (6) Submission of recommendations for new and revised ordinances and regulations for environmental improvements. (7) Development of recommended changes in City procedures, programs, or activities that contribute to the solution of our environmental problems. (8) Suggestions as to means of creating an awareness of environmental problems throughout the community. (9) Identification of opportunities for community cooperation, interagency cooperation and intergovernmental cooperation in programs to improve the environment. (10) Such other related matters that the Committee deems of benefit to the City Council in attacking the environmental problems of the City. SECTION 5. REPORT. The Committee, in its advisory capacity, shall make its report and recommendation in writing to the City Council six months from the date of the swearing in of a majority of, the Committee, unless such deadline is extended by resolution from the City Council. 292 SECTION 6. REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 13386. That Ordinance No. 13386, passed by the City Council on September 27, 1971, is hereby expressly repealed; provided that all appointments made by the City Council under said Ordinance'shall constitute valid appointments hereunder. SECTION 7. ORDINANCE NOT ITO BE CODIFIED. S-ince this Committee is of a temporary nature, this Ordinanc 11 not be codified as a part of the 1960 Revised Code of Civil and Criminal,Ordinances of'the City of Dallas. SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. That this Ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dallas and it is accord'i,ngly so ordained. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Passed: January 3, 1972 N. ALEX BICKLEY, CITY-ATTORNEY .''Correctly Enrolled: January 3, 1972 ATTEST: Harold G. Shank@ By: ANALESLIE MUNCY City Secretary ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 293 ADDENDUM C: ECOLOGICAL STUDY NATURAL RESOURCE VARIABLES CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS (3) Urbanized Area 1959 021 Urban Growth.1959-68 025 Urbanized Area 1970 ZOOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS (5) 100 Rookery 101 Pileated Woodpecker Habitat 102 Black Capped Vireo Habitat 103 Trinity River Floodplain 104 Complex Wildlife Areas (generated) BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS (10) 150 Unique Botanical Areas 151 Cedar Break 152 Upland Forst 153 Lowland Forest/Gulches, Gullies, & Small Streams 154 Black Prairie (generated) 155 Marsh (Natural) 156 Aquatic (Natural) 157 Marsh (Man-Made) 158 Aquatic (Man-Made) 159 Lowland Forests/Flood Plain HYDROMORPHIC CHARACTERISTICS (14) 250 Watersheds 251 Lake 252 Pond .253 River 254 Stream 255 Intermittent Stream 256 Intermittent Lake 257 Intermittent Pond 260 Flood Plains 261 Flooded Area Dependent upon Pumps 262 Aquifer: Woodbine Sand 263 Aquifer: Paluxy Sand 264 Aquifer: Basal Trinity Sand 265 Aquifer: Woodbine Recharge Area EDAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS (1) 300 Soil Associations' GEOMORPHIC CHARACTERISTICS (2) 350 Surface Geology 351 Faults 295 ECOLQGICAL n- 5f, to I, --------------------- --- ------ --- ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------- - ------- .................... ......................... "Nc 5.111,11. @c ... C.C.05:50.,-5 t 6,cs I C a 6.15 6.50 3 6.51 a 6-35, 1 -25 6.30 1 63.5 1 t 61, 6'" t @3a% 638, 3 636, 2 3 0 t 636S. 1 6,6t I 6355 a 63 13- 3:15 ? 15 6331 .33; 6330 .3i 632 632, AM "IS 305 6100 6a-Z 671, 62-0 6265 62ao A7 6 A2,5 6265 1 9 02.0 :25 51 'S 2 e 62.1 62 6115 t 673@ 623. 3 9 , 6@25 NI I 1 4?2 :220 1 611, .. 11 1 . 115 I" 61-l J 61 5 6.V 31 :.s 11 617, 61's 1 1 61. .13' 11 *3 10 .1 6 2 6120 a 6 i 11151 I .Ito ..9 U.; 6110-15 1. me 6 .0!0. Gcoo I t 16C F. .06. 1 t oos@ Ge .,'.S It S .0 60-S 1 6640 1 '13, 3" Ic :0020, 60.0 66ft' 77 .. ... -4 1------ 4- itt IIIIIIIIIIIIIILII122221 2 2 222 31333) 1 ,3_556 7, aq ,22 12!12121'7 Ill 5 .6,1111111 1 1 11131@2!13- 0 S"c @l 5 -1 5 5 @ 5 z 5 0 1 z 5 @ 5 c S 0 t @ 5 c Sc m 0@ S05,@i .51 505 0 2 -- - ----------------- - ---------- - ------- - --- 7------------ -- - -------------- - ---------- - - - ------- PILE.It OOOPfC.cQ -AITAT DALLAS 9 COLD ICAL STUDY I. CPAQIC FM VA"AS PLANNING 9 ..S.m OEVILO-NE.T a, MEATED WOODPECKER HABITAT EST g AIIW . WISCONSIN C.I.hfs DATA MAPPED IN I@ LEVMS @OSOLVTE VALUE MANGE APPLYING EAC LEVEL C I oa@ 12, 03C c 460 ere coo 61 91. C1. 0, 13 :0 It 9 TS9 Go To coo 09: PEPCENTAGE OF TOTAL ARSOLUVE VA-t RANGE APPLYING TO :-CN LEVEL -25.6. 1-.6. 15.9a 2 so ...I -.C2 ..0j, 6.2% 3.57 4.02 LEVELS A 5 6 7 I ................................... to ... . .. ..... I. ............ :: NNIV-1: ..... I. . ..... . @6 i)C, -0 .... ......... ......... .... I.- c crcc@cc @6. .. ........ 4 a.-VIOM .................................... ............ ...... ...... ZEaO.V.LV1!S It DATA SET 10 IC I 10@14112 FIGURE 32 'ZOOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTIC: PILEATED WOODPECKER HABITAT 296 ECOLOGICAL STUDY SAMPLE MAPS ADDENDUM d. ------------- 7----------------------------------------------------------------------- A '7' 1113 1132" s: . . . . . 'I Az I . . . . . . . . ... . ................... t I Ic . . . . . . . . . .I................. e:@o I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .& . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64%* 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.............. .9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... :::::: o' : ; 1 '1 ................ ....... . A . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . ;-.; . , , : : : : : *.: : , '. : ; A..?i ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e e I .............. cc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t IEl mc I 4Cc c Ccn- 2- cl.@: z- z -@4a@ .3sl 1 ..C_C@ c . . . . . Iea I ........... .............. e315 I C:zc 1 q 631c 1 .A t ,55 6i5 A C .0 1 . . . . . . . . . ................. q ell$ .3@o *::4 A 3, 6. 1 2 A . . . . . . 6. 33 .. So It -CCLca 6@ss 1. . . . . . . . . . . Ctt@-- C 'C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;rcE@CG=' C"CC 62ic 4.12!.' 627t I e2e5 I 'Ccc "CIc---C o I !tCCrEfCCCCcI(; I t2l- C, -_CCC @CLC ---ac. ..1i" C- CCCI-i cl ccclc 62.a 1 e ........... 63i .......... 623, I CCCCG '_=14 1"S It .,2! .......... C@Fr CCIC, . . . . . A - - - - - ;I *:.. 12 c;!rccf crccccc . . . . . . . . . . Cc .1 ........... '21t . . . . . . . . . . . . .1r.1CCCCCCccrCCrc . . . . . . . . . . -Crc-s . . . . . . . . . . .c@c- 6?0! arc? "@c4c"c '_5CCC -cc @c C ::cc,,, .............. ......... ...... r- c " -ic ...... Irc"Cl-t: C"LLC@CCC@CCC ..... t,140 I TIT; CA It I cae; 4 .......... tc-111CL-L ............... 55 1 ........... r@c elso 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .......... 'C"cC.............. i- 12- @CCSt@ ;--1 6222o 1 -.. ........... Cllec_C C.Czzc .................. lot t (-CzcCC-.C 9 ':;:.cr'vCCCCsIr: e 1 11 C . . . . . [email protected],,cE'@. ................... Ic 1. Is fc't ..... . ...... 1:;-%:C'cC CC"C .................. T n 60" 1 ................ ----------- ....... @:..C'cccc@ci_-@@Cc ............ cc 'tcc, ..... 11 .054 1 .............. . C(r@ ccL '11-t el:52 It Tf ..... :: _5,CCcccrcccCcCCCCcCCC@4 ..'cc, E C rc@cc t2H .C' C c Cc__-c CC ccCCcccCCC(CCCcCCCzcc "a Gc2O t4 6C2 9 1 Ill I 1111117 111111111,7,11 -- -22 , ZZ2,33333 I _C5 I -- - -- - - - ------------------ ----- - --------- - ------------- ------------------- - - - - - -- PELAT[We TOLEDANCE OF --Clc@@-HIC SUPSVSTe@ - SLnS LOFACE CALL.s acmaGIcAL, sTua, LLAS PLANNING & 4AIIIIA,ft CEWLOV@NT `H' Ic - of H Y MR409%, A A 0 P 45 U, 2.0 *SUR FAC E ." L..C@APES Ll-tlfD ts. fil ..I. st.rat -CISO . isc-st. ccfts LpLTAftls DATA NAPPeC 14 30 LFWELS Al!vil-Te WAI@L R-ar APPvIftG III I.C- Lf@fl_ 41:1,1 AG 21 Ill."a2" 7 .24 **.dq '@s ?5..i -4.-e .1.66 6s.54 %4.*7 qV.S. IN PILPCtNT*Cf @r T*TAL -@Ilt -.E .... @ -Llf.a IC IF-L I...z 1.10 I..-D ti.13 *.*I Geoo 21.66 LEVFLS, ... ......... 2 .......... I......... ......... !......... ......:.........:.........?........ .... ......... 11-ems .. ...... .. ......... .. ......... ..... cc, ............ ......... AT .......... ........ ;...... 431. S6 if, ac'!617@ FIGURE 44 RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF HYDROMORPHIC SUBSYSTEAI' SUB.SURFACE (60.4) 297 APPENDIX 3 REPORT ON THE FIELD TRIP TO INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA Introduction Inglewood is a city of 90,000 population concentrated i.n,8.85 square miles. It is one of seventy-seven cities in Los Angeles County, and much of the-city lies in the landing approach to one of the world's buslestairports (Los Angeles International). It was Incorporated in 1908 and there are a number of homes that date to that era. Its government is a council-ma nager system. Each of these characteristics affects the nature of its environment or the strategies and organization adopted to manage it. The city manager is a dynamic leader and a major source of policy innovation. Innovation, generally, is not hampered by a lack of home rule; 11 ... by general law [California] grants all cities a greater range of authority than many other states allow their municipalities even under home rule .... The classification of cities into 'general-law' and 'home-rule' (or 'charter') categories consequently loses most of its significance in this state."* The city's age has meant it contains a number of older houses ready for destruction, and because of the economics of housing It has seen large.areas rezoned for apartments. Its proximity to Los Angeles' ghetto has led to an interplay of the issues 'of growth and race. Its proximity to Los Angeles' airport has made noise pollution its major environmental problem and a high priority political issue. Being only one city in a very large metropolitan area means it has little control over its environment. Inglewood's decision makers have no control over major sources of pollution which,are ex- ternal to its city limits, and even some local sources of pollution are the responsibility of other units of government. For example, air pollution in the Los Angeles Air Basin is the responsibility of the Air Pollution Control District rather than the individual cities' responsi- bility. In.addition, the economic interdependence of a metropolitan arei means that local businesses are frequently owned by non-residents and that-residents usually work outside the city limits, resulting in a com-, plex patter'n of polit.ical identification, which is compounded by meager media coverage of local government other than Los Angeles'. One conse- quence of this "is that local units of environmental interest'groups are organ:ized to play an active role at the metropolitan level rather than in the individual suburbs. Its population density suggests a fully *Henry A. Turner and John A. Vieg, The Government and Politics of California (New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), pp. 203-04. 298 developed city with relatively little open space available for public recreation (when city fathers proudly point to planters and "open- space" on the third floor of its Civic Center as one of its parks, one can easily understand that Inglewood is far from typical.) This report covers Inglewood's environmental program. First it examines their program in noise pollution which includes a program of legal suits, and a set of standards and. machinery to monitor and en- force them, as well as a number of other activities. Then it reports on Inglewood's use of the Environmental Impact Statement I5rocess for both public and private projects., A third area of attention is the Property Maintenance Program which Inglewood considers part of its environmental management strategy because it is geared to impede de- terioration and therefore to improve aesthetics while obvJating the need for some urban redevelopment projects. Finally, the report briefly examines the organizational arrangement used to manage the environment. NOISE Inglewood's concern with the environment as a policy issue.began with the aircraft noise problem. Its concern soon expanded to include other sources of noise pollution. It then developed still further until it included the other traditional aspects of the physical envi- ronment. Eventually environment as a policy was integrated with other social policy issues. Thenoise problem for Inglewood, which is adjacent-to Los Angeles Inte.rnational Airport, had increased with the almost exclusive use of jets and with the great growth of 'air travel that marked the 1960's. Although the aircraft noise problem was obvious to anyone walking the streets of Inglewood, it manifested itself as a serious political prob- lem at several neighborhood meetings held during*the first month of. service of the new City Manager (April.1968). Threats of political action against City Council incumbents running in the forthcoming elec- tion made it evident that an immediate program of action was necessary. An internal staff investigation was initiated by the City Manager, a former pilot, and the City Attorney (who also came into office in April 1968) and encouraged by the Mayor, who was also a former pilot. It proceeded while an acoustical consultant hired by the previous City Manager prepared his report. The latter was issued in November 1968 and contained technical and other data on noise in Inglewood. These initial studies indicated a need for further data, as well as provided a framework for the future environmental management strategy for Inglewood. The need for further data was partially met by a study indicating that real estate values had been adversely affected 299 by aircraft noise.* Plans were also developed to monitor the noise in Inglewood's environment. Subsequent studies also brought confir- mation of citizen concern about noise -- a 196� survey indicated that almost half the respondents listed aircraft noise control as the most important community Issue, and a 1970 survey found that sixty-one percent felt that finding a solution to the jet noise problem was "of greatest importance" (this compared to seventy-three percent for crime in the streets and thirty-two percent for school integration/segrega- tion.) The strategy evolved into a ten-point program that was adopted by the City Council in September 1969. The program was to be carried, out, in part, by a newly created Environmental Standards Division that was formally placed within the Building Department, but actually reported directly to the City Manager.- A Director was hired in November 1969 after a recruitment compaign that included newspaper advertisements, including a successful ad in the Wall Street'Journal. The ten-point plan called'fQr: 1. A series of law suits against Los Angeles for damages ,on behalf of residents and property.owners in Ingle- wood, and to compel them to extend their runways there- by permitting landing aircraft to be at a higher altitude while over Inglewood. With the help of special counsel, a suit was filed against the City of Los Angeles (which owns the air- port) in the U.S. District Court in May 1969. A 'practically identical suit was filed in the California Superior Court In October 1969. The main reason for initiating the backup suit in the state court was that it had a lower minimum monetary jurisdiction -- a plaintiff has to have damages of $1.0,000 to sue in federal court, but only $5,000 inthe state court. The federal court ruled that Inglewood did not have standing to sue. This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals which ruled that Inglewood could sue and remanded the case back to the lower court which, *The computerized correlation study showed that high noise levels were associated with low land values. The correlation was statistically significant a 'nd indicated that land subject to noise levels less than 80 PndB were valued on the average fifty percent h.igher than land subject to noise levels greater than 110 PndB. High noise levels were also associated with high vacancy rates. The vacancy rate correlation was statistically significant for rental dwelling units and showed that on the average the vacancy rate was fifty percent higher In areas sub- ject to aircraft noise levels above 110 PndB than In areas where air- craft noise was less than 80 PndB. 300 in part, was to,determi,ne as part of the trial whether the owners had'suffered the minimum amount of damages -necessary for a federal suit. But Inglewood decided to drop their federal suit and press.their case in the state cou'rt. They won the first round.when the court rejected Los Angeles',moti.on to dismiss the case on the grounds of "multiplicity of -actions" (i.e., the suit in Federal Court and a separate suit by.a group of Inglewood residents). Los Angeles' appeal of,this decision is now under consideration. In addition, since Inglewood's suit in federal.court was .filed in behalf of residents, some of these are trying to have the Federal suit re'instated. This discussion of Inglewood's civil suits clearly indi- one of the major weaknesses of this strategy -- i.e., it'.is subj.ect to great delays, increasing its costs. Inglewood's criminal case did not fare better. When the city filed misdemeanor charges in March 1971 against an airline's pilot for violating it,s.noise ordinance, an injunction against enforcement of this part of the ordi- nance was issued. An additional aspect of Inglewood's "legal" strategy, was its financial support for the appeal of a case involving the efforts of a near-by city (Burbank) to control evening flights from an airport within its own city limits. This case was decided against Burbank on May 14, 1973, by a 5-4 vote of the U.S. Supreme Court, which, however, apparently still left open the question-of whether municipally owned airports could regulate aircraft noise at its own facilities. 2. A comprehensive noise ordinance. Development of the ordi- nance and enforcement of it required a variety of monitoring equipment. The equipment that was purchased included a van which contained a microphone, precision sound level meter, octave band analyzer, graphic recorder, stereo tape recorder, aircraft band and shortwave radios, camera equipment, and tools and other accessories. Some of this equipment was for the city's general noise monitoring program, but some of it was for its specialized campaign on aircraft noise. In addition to this portable equipment, there were also four fixed microphones on telephone poles in the flight path and a central recording station in City Hall to receive the air- craft-noise.da.ta. It should be noted that a city could begin i,ts program with a relatively simple hand-held meter (although it,would have limited utility for any court cases). 301 The equipment also provided the City with data needed for its suits. Financing for the equipment which cost approximately $50,000 -- and staff originally came from a special, four percent utility tax earmarked for this purpose, but the program is currently financed from the general fund. The noise ordinance that was adopted is similar to the Model Noise Ordinance developed by the League of Califor- nia Cities. The ordinance establishes standards which vary according to different zones and times. For instance the assumed base ambient noise level for resi- dential areas at night is forty-five dbA, while it is fifty-five dbA during the day; this compares to sixty- five dbA for commercial zones during the day. Any continuous noise five dbA above the ambient level is prohibited; guidelines suggested that intermittent noise (less than five minutes an hour) should not exceed ten dbA above the ambient, and short duration noise (lasting only a few seconds) is limited to fifteen dbA above the ambient for purposes of enforcement. A special provision was written for aircraft noise. Because of earlier federal court rulings limiting the power of other cities to regulate interstate commerce such as airplane flights,* the ordinance exempted any planes flying in conformities with federal air regulations or traffic control instructions. But if a plane was in violation of these rules -- e.g., flying significantly below the proscribed landing approach glide path -- it was prohibited from producing noise levels above ninety dbA. The ordinance took effect in November 1970, and the first plane was cited for violation of it in March 1971. But immediately after this misdemeanor citation was issued, an injunction against enforcement of this part of the ordinance was issued. 3. Building codes were to be rev ised requiring sound-proofing of all new construction and remodeling. Various forms of incentive zoning were considered as aid. 4. Ma-ster plan and zoning regulations were to be re-examined in order to adjust land use in areas in the aircraft landing corridors. *E.G. Allegheny Airlines,v. Village of Cedarhurst, 238 F. 2d 812 (2d Cir. 1956), and American Airlines, Inc., v. Town of Hempstead, 398 F. 2d 369 (2d Cir. 1968). 5. The city attempted to get Los Angeles to extend its runways toward the ocean, thus permitting planes to be'at@a- higher altitude while flying over Inglewood. This proposed measure ts presently under consideration. It a'l@o tried,to get other,revisions-in the approach pattern e.g., prohibiting turns in the area. In addi*tion i't urged tha't approaches to the airport be at a steeper angle. 8. At urged the airlines toAevelop quieter (and cleaner) engines... 9., It proposed that the'City should intervene in all FAA, CAB,zrid'California Public Utilities Commission pro- ceedihgs affecting noise. 10. In addi'tion, it helped form a national organization concerned with [email protected] -- NOISE (National Orga- nization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment). Although not, listed as part o f its ten-point program, the city has made efforts to Insure that its'own@equipment does:not contribute to noise pollution and it is engaged in'a major equipment sound,-proofing program. (e.g., on its one-mah@sanitation teucks)i It also engaged in an ex- tensive-public-relations campaign to focus attention on the problem. In conclusion,*Ingl6wooals noise pollution management plan attacked the problem on a wide front. Although some of the methods have been manifestly unsuccessful " e.g., it has not won any court decisions its efforts have had some success. For instance, Los Angeles has developed strict noise controls for:the a-irport, as well as altering approaches. Similarly, expertise developed by Inglewood-has been utilized by EPA in its development of noise pollution regIulations, (Inglewood's Environmental Standards Supervisor,w6s.on loan to EPA for six months under the provisions of the Intergovernmental Pe'rsonnel.Act) as well as by Congress in its drafting of noise pollution laws. In addition, some C.ity-officials have seen Inglewood's,efforts a's not only an attempt to improve the environment of its citizens, but also to demonstrate to them .that their government cares ab but their health, wel-l-being, and satis- faction, and to reduce their feelings of -isolation and helplessness. The City's concern for a1rcraft noise has spread to other forms of pollution and other social issues. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In. May 1972, Inglewood's City Council issued a set of environmental impact study guidelines. These guidelines incorporated into a formal' requirement', a procedure. that already had been used by the s't6ff for 303 almost two years. It also brought Inglewood into conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 which required environmental studies for all projects subject to public action.* The following broad categories of factors were to be considered'in order "to insure that all important aspects of an environmental evaluation" were examined: 1. land transformation and construction (ten specific items, e.g., erosion, floods) 2. land use (six specific items, e.g., open space, resi- dential), 'water resou*rces (four specific items, e.g., quality, drainage) 4. air quality (five specific items, e.g., oxides, particulate matter) 5. service systems (six specific items, e.g., 'sewerage system, refuse disposal) transportation systems (four specific items, e.g., automobile, safety) 7. noise and vibration (two specific items, i.e., on-site, off-site) .8. aesthetics (two specific items, i.e., scenery, structures) 9. community:structure (six specific items,@e.g., recreation, employment) Each factor was to be evaluated separately for the project's construc- tion phase and its operating phase. (See Addendum a) The process was described as follows:. The preparing agency prepared the EIS and forwarded it to the Environmental Standards Division for review. Within fourteen days they were to'forward it to the Planning Department for review. Within an additional seven days they were to forward it to the City Administrator, who was to decide within seven days whether the project should continue to its next phase (which would be the adoption fln September 1972, the California Supreme Court interpreted the law to include private projects which involve city actions other than of a ministerial nature -- i.e., if the city grants approval on a projec't for which it could have denied approval, then the project is subject to an EIS. 304 of a design budget or 6 construction budget, depending on the nature of the project) Each reviewer of the EIS was to indtcate either (1).general agreement (no objection or only minor changes proposed) or (2) a need for further information or (3),major,changes necessary in the EIS or (4) that the action was unsatisfactory because "of the potential degradation of the environment (or] the safeguards to protect the-environment are inadequate [or] thealternatives 'to proposed action need further analysis including the Ino action' alternative." In September 1972, just pri.or,to, the State Supreme Court decision ex- panding the EIS requirement to @inctude -privat,e p@roject,s, Inglewood issued a policy statement for using "total impact analysis" on public and private projects, thus broadening the scope of environmental concern in the decision making process.. The principle "building block" of total impact analysis was the.quanti- fication of environmental and social values. The underlying objective was to compare environmental, social, and economic costs with environ- mental, social, and economic benefits.. The prescribed method was as follows: For each environmental or social cost or benefit the magnitude of t.he effect was:to be estimated -- e.g., the number of people affected, or the quantity.of air pollution created, or decibels of sound produced. Then an importance factor was to be assigned; these were to consider the nature of the measurement unit of the magnitude (eig., whether it was-peoole, or parts-per-million of air pollution); it 'was also to vary with the type of land use affected -- e.g., residential areas were more important than open space. Professional judgment, questionnairesi or some form of group decision making were suggested as methods to determine the appropriate importance factors. Then these two@quantities were to be mu,lt,iplied resulti.ng i.n "impact units" for each effect. Next, a dollar value was assigned to each impact unit, and when this was-multipli,ed by the number of impact units an estimate of the net total social cost/bene.fit resulted. The comparison of environ- mental and social costs and benefits, and economic costs and benefits then enabled the decision maker to judge@the desirability of a particular project. The City used the principle in varied forms, of total impact analysis on three of its own environmental impa ct studies: a site for a water treatment plant, the construction and operation of the plant, and a study of eight alternate freeway routes (the latter did not involve the same degree of precis.ion in the quantification of environmental impacts nor any attempt to assess any,economic values). 305 To date, the method has proven useful, but also has encountered some difficulties. The highest rated sites for the water treatment plant proved to be politically unacceptable, and a lower rated site was selected. The attached illustration (Addendum b ) of the completed total impact analysis for the operation of the water treatment plant illustrates some of its problems. For example, the selection of the unit of measurement for the magnitude of the effect can have a major impact on the final result. Although the importance factor is far from arbitrary, it may be difficult to justify the values assigned. Similarly placing an economic value upon an impact unit is a difficult operation. It should be noted, however, the presentation of the data elements rather than only a single sum enables the decision maker to attach his own values at each point. When the California State Supreme Court ruled in September 1972, that an EIS was necessary for private projects as well as public pro- jects, the immediate impact throughout the state was turmoil. The cities were unprepared and their Initial respons .e was to Impose moratoria an zone changes, building permits, and other related municipal actions until reasonable guidelines Were developed. The state subsequently issued its own guidelines for the implementation of the law.' But Inglewood had developed its own procedure at the staff level two years earlier, and this was officially adopted by the Council on November 14, 1972. Changes were made subsequently, in April.,1973, that brought Inglewood into general conformance with state-issued guidelines. The process adopted in November 1972 instituted a requirement for an Environmental Clearance Statement for any zone changes, variances, and exceptions, special use and grading permits, filing of sub-division tract maps,-and building permits..(See Addendum c fo.r this form.) Auto- matic, exceptions were,granted for (a) detached single family dwellings, and permits for such related items'as-pools.- room additi-ons and fences, and (b) modifications entailing no expansion of use. Other cities granted exemptions for projects below a fixed number of units or value of the project. Subsequent State guidelines exempted similar projects but permitted increased capacity up to fifty percent In some situations.' In addition, Inglewood's procedure permitted the Environmental Review Committee to exempt any project from the requirement to-file an Environmental Clearance Statement because the project did not have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) was composed of repre- sentatives of the Planning and Development Department, Public'Works Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Fire Department, and Police Department. This review committee could (a) find the project had no significant impact and therefore approve it, (b) find the project would have an impact which could be alleviated by some action, and thus it could conditionally approve the project with the provision that the action was comp"leted, or (c) find the project had significant affect on the.environment and therefore require a full Environmental Impact Study. 306 The ERC was to consider a number of factors in making its deciston, including: (a), _consi.sten,cy with the General Plan and other land uses in the vicinity (b) Its,effect on, and effect by, the natural environment. (e.g., slope stability conditions., soil-characteristics) (c,),- its effect on cultura-l,,historical, and recreational sites that cannot,be replaced W- Its effect on visual quality (e.g., consideration of landscaping, building setbacks, etc.) (e) its effect on air, water, and noise pollution (f) its effect on the need for public services If an EIS wererequired, then the Community Environmental Commission (CEC) was to-consider'the EIS and any other information it deems appro- priate (e.@g., facts brought out at a public hearing) and determine the project's environmental impact and to either approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project. The decision of the CEC could have been appealed to the City Council (after-payment of a $100 fee). The.EIS had to include in.addition to a description of the project: (a) a description of the environmental setting, (b) the environmental impact, inctuding-specific listing of.unavdidable impacts as well as irreversible changes, (c) mi.tigation measures to be taken to prevent the environmental damage, i-ncluding evaluation of alternatives to aspects of the-peoject or the project itself. As noted earlier, the procedures established by Inglewood permitted its Environmental, Review Committee to conditionally approve the initial Environmental Clearance Statement claiming no significant environmental impact. LThe conditions it established may have become part of a formal negotiation process, and apparently need-not have been limited to purely environmenta'l considerations. An example of the conditions established for approval of an Environmental Cl.e'arance Statement included prohibiting access to,and from a particular street by erectirvg an eight-ten foot decorative masonry wall; the full set of conditions in one case can be found in Addendum d:. Prior to the-revision of the guidelines in April 1973, eleven public and twenty-five private projects were subject to the EIS process. Of the eleven public projects, three of the ElSshad to be changed as a result of the review process, and two of these projects were modified as a res@ult;-no projects were rejected. Of the twenty-five private projects subject to the EIS process, twenty Environmental Clearance Statements were'accepted unconditionally, three were accepted condit-ion- ally, and two were subject to a full Environmental Impact Study; no projects were rejected., 307 In February 1973, the Resources Agency of California issued its guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970. In April 1973, the City Council of Ingle- wood amended its own requirements and procedures to conform to the state's guidelines. The procedure as now.established requires the Planning and Devel- opment Director (rather than the broader-based ERC) to make the initial decisions whether (a) the project or activity is not covered by the CEQA or Council ordinance, (b) exempt because the governmental action is deemed to be either an emergency, or of a ministerial nature, or (c) categorically exempt. Ministerial acts include filing of sub-divi- sion maps and issuing building permits -- both of which had been included in Inglewood's EIS process prior to these revisions. Projects that are categorically exempt are: (1) existing facilities which are merely being repaired, maintained, or altered slightly (additional space is limited to 2500 square feet-or fifty percent, whichever is less); (2) replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities, with substantially the same purpose and size; (3) new con- struction of small structures (e.g., a s*ingle family home -- provided no more than two are built -- or stores and offices designed for no more..than twenty occupants); (4) minor alterations to land (e.g., grading on land with less than ten percent slope); (5) minor altera- tions in land use limitations -- i.e., minor lot line adjustments and set-back variances, not zoning,changes which are not exempt; (6) acces- sory structures (such as small parking lots, on-premise signs, drainage projects under $10,000). The last four categories may not be exempt if the project is in a particularly sensitive environment, or if the cumulative impact of successive minor changes results in a significant impact. Other categorical exemptions include information collection, regulatory actions for protection of natural resources and for protec- tion of the environment, inspections, loans, and surplus government property sales (except land). If the project is not exempt, the Planning and Development Director must then decide whether the project may have possible significant environmental effects. If he declares that It will not have such impact, he Issues a Negative Declaration, which is posted and becomes final after ten days if it has not been appealed. In Inglewood, appeals are heard by the Community Environment Commission (which is a joint group composed of the Planning and Zoning Board and the Constructions Appeals Board), after a fee of $50. has been paid; their decision may be appealed to the City Council within ten days on payment of a $25. fee. The Director's decision that a project may have significant impact and therefore requi,res an Environmental Impact Report Is also appealable under the conditions noted above. The factors to be considered in making the decision whether a project may have a significant environmental impact requiring further study are basically the same as those the ERC was to use in making the same decision under Inglewood's earlier guidelines -- with the exception 308 that assessing the project's effect on the need for public.services Is not spec(fically mentioned and the new language only mentions 11posing a burden on the existing street system" In its place. Re- ,ference to impacts on irreplaceable cultural, historical, and recre- ational sites was also dropped at this decision point, but it and the Impact of the project upon public services must be Included In the full Environmental Impact Report, if one is required. It should also be noted that the guidelines specifically stated that the factors to be considered were not to be limited to,-those listed.,.And, also that both primary and secondary consequences of an action are to be considered (e.g., the consequences upon the environment of any result- Ing population growth). 'If an EIR is required, the draft (which may be made by the developer) Is circulated to Interested departments and is,made avail- able to the public upon request. Comments are to be made within thl-rty days, and a final EIR is to be prepared within an additional thirty days. The City then decides whether the project will or will not have a significant effect on the environment, and whether or not to approve the project. An Environmental Impact Report must include: (a) as the environ- mental impact of the proposed action, including primary and secondary impacts as well as short-term and long-term ones, at each stage -- I acquisition, construction, operation -- of the project; (b) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided If the project IsImple- mented; (c) mitigatlo'n measures proposed to minimize the impact; (d) alternatives to Ithe proposed action (including alternative mitigation measures, and the option of having no project at all), with the reasons for rejecting them; (e) relationship between the short-term use of the environment and the perspective that each generation Is the trustee of the environment.for future generations; (f) any Irreversible envi- ronmental changes if the project were implemented; (g) the growth inducing impacts of the proposed-action; and (h) the boundaries of the affected area, which actually may be quite far from the proposed site. There has been some dissatisfaction with the EIS' process in Inglewood as elsewhere in California. The EIS process comes into play only when someone wants to do something; the decline of the environment through inaction (e.g., deterioration of buildings) is not examined. The EIS process requires a case by case consideration rather than the broader approach found in general planning considerations. There have also been complaints the pri'vately produced Envi.ronmental..Clearance Statements and even full-fledged EIS reports are poorly done and even take on the appearance of mass produced ilnterchangeable studies, rather than real examinations of the impact of the particular project. The revised guidelines in Inglewood have provisions for the city to prepare the reports and to pass on the costs of preparations and review unto the applicant (this is in addition to a basic fee of $50. and any fees for appeals). The EIS process has also been criticized as. costly and dilatory. And it is not clear that Inglewood and other cities have the expertise 309 needed to evaluate the environmental impact of a project especially if secondary and growth-inducing impacts must be considered. But the EIS process has introduced environmental considerations. into the decision making process, and has contributed to its rational- ity and openness. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM One consequence of an increased demand for environmental action may be that some programs-which existed before (or independently of) this demand will be relabeled as environmental management programs. Building code requirements for landscaping, or minimum number of park- ing spaces will be cited as environment programs.. Although Inglewood's Property Maintenance Program couldbe considered a part of some other governmental function, its contribution to stabilizing the urban envi- ronment calls for its discussion in this report. More importantly, preventative programs should be considered by cities as part of their environmental management strategy. As part of Inglewood's federally funded Community Review Program a recommendation for a Property Maintenance Program (PMP) was maJe and adopted. The PMP is an attempt at preventative medicine. As one Inglewood official noted, "The Environmental Impact Statement process works when someone wants to do something. But there is a need for programs to prevent later problems whose solutions will require the EIS process." The PMP is seen as a process to slow down the need for public urban redevelopment projects. -it is also hoped by Inglewood officials that it will slow down the transition from single-family homes to.apart- ments, and perhaps aid in the stabilization of the*current racial balance. The PMP involves inspecting building structures for their external appearances and requiring them to repair deteriorating conditions. (See Addendum d for requirements.) The program differs from Inglewood's, 'program for building code enforcement in several ways: (1) it focuses upon external'appearance rather than internal conditions such as proper electrical wiring, (2) it utilizes the skills'found in Planning Depart- ments with its greater neighborhood and people orientation, rather than the more traditional building inspector who-are more concerned with safety and building code conformance,10) it utilizes a scheduled in-.- spection system of structures in designated neighborhoods, rather than operating on a complaint basis. In Inglewood, the program is admin- istered through the Environmental Standards Division of the Planning and Development Department. @ee Addendum e for the citationform.) The program is designed to have six phases each lasting two years, resulting in most structures being systematically inspected and rein- spected for compliance by the end of the program. 'The first phase- involves inspection of 2800 structures in three areas and covers approxi- mately eighteen percent of the units scheduled to be inspected. The cost of the program was estimated at $60-80,000 per year..- 310 The results of the program can be easily evaluated both by a qualitative evaluation of,the improvements made as well as by a quantitative'.measure of the number of buildings inspected and the number of violations corrected. For the first nine months of the program 712 buildings were inspected compared to 851 buildings in the previous 5 1/4 years which relied on building inspections ori- ginating from a complaint. Based on Ing.lewood.'s experience with the program, and an evaluation by the administration, several recommendations can be made to any city thinkihg.of such a preventative program as part of it.s environ- mental'management strategy., the programshould be based upon an analysis of the total community in terms of its.social, economic, and. physical characteristics and needs. It should proceed in phases, with the first ph'ase deliberately selected so that it does not include the, most blighted areas, but rather includes those most amenable to the cosmetic changes envigioned by this program. Nor should the initial areas concentrate on areas predominated by one race, economic level, or age group. It isespecially important that the initial burden not rest with the black, the poor, or the elderly, even if those areas might benefit most from the program. The program reqLd res a strong publ i c. relati.ons campaign to ensure enforcement and success. Clearly the councilmen,ought to be consulted on the scheduling of the inspection areas. Real 'istically,,.consideration must be given to election schedules, and where the council is selected on a district basis (rather than at- large) consideration must be given to distributing the political burden of.this program. But it should be-noted that the Inglewood City Council has given the program enthusiastic support. In part, this may be due to the transition problems Inglewood is encountering. -The Council is more attuned to the needs and problems of its sing le-family residents, because these are more likely to be concerned with local government in. IngIeWood. The apartment dwellers have.less identification with the city, in part because 'they are newer residents,- and in part because information about.the community is difficult to acquire because Inglewood is merely-one of seventy-seven cities in Los.Angeles County and is without strong I-ocal coverage (i.e., all of the TV channels -- a major source of news -- concentrate upon Los Angeles rather than the smaller cities). Since they do not pay property taxes directly, nor do.they receive,as.many direct service (e.g., they are less likely to be aware of trash collection problems), and since many of them work outside of Inglewood -- their concern with Inglewood government is far less than the older.Inglewood home-owner who is more directly tied to the city's services.and tax burden. These councilmen were eager to support a pro- gram thai would maintain older neighborhoods,-and contribute to both, stabilizing its racial composition as well as its home-owner composition. 311 Based on Inglewood's experience, a city contemplating this program should be prepared for negative feedback on other faults of the government as well as on the program. Some of those adversely affected by the program may suggest that the city solve Problem X or Problem Y rather than spend-its resources on this program. The avail- ability of financial assistance in teems of low cost loans or of alternate low-cost housing may play an important role in the success of this program, as in the case of other code enforcement programs. ORGANIZATION The basic organizational question faced by Inglewood was where to place the responsib.ilities for protecting the environment. The initial.organization was an Environmental Standards Division (ESD) which was formally placed within the Building Department, but whose. head reported directly to the City Manager -- emphasizing the high priority to be given this program. A subsequent'reorganization placed the ESD (and the Building Department)'within the'Planning and Develop- ment Department. Inglewood governmental officials consider"ed the creation of a separate environmental department or EPA but rejected this alternative in favor of the Planning and Development Department handling the envi- ronmental function. Several reasons were cited. 1. The City Manager wanted environmental considerations to become institutionalized as part of each department head's decision making criteria, and he felt that a separate department encouraged the idea that the environ- ment was someone else's responsibility. He felt that an administrative style of cooperation was more productive than one involving an adversary approach. 2. Concern for the environmen t should come early in the decision making process, and placement within the Plan- ning and Development Department*facilitates this. Planning is a vital function, which cannot be separated from the environment, and hence the Planning and Develop- ment Department should be responsible for environmental protection. A separate Environment Department would involve considerable overlap of skills. In addition, a new department may face additional barriers in its relations with other more established departments. It was the feeling of the City Manager that the best source for environmental expertise for his administration'was to train current staff members rather than hire environmenta- lists; current staff, and th'e Planning and Development Department, already had an appreciation for the need to 312 compromise between economic rea.lities and.environmental necessities. .6. Inglewood's size.was smallenough so that the responsi- bility,of protecting the environment would not over- burden the Planning and Development,Depa.rtment. An'additional organizational aspect faced by Inglewood was the role of citizen participation in'the area of environmental protection. Here Inglewood's approach was much more traditional than some other innovative and environmentally.aggressive cities. In August 1971, political.considerations, a desire.to 'streamline the appeals process, and some environmental considerations led.to the dissolution of thei,r Planningtommission, Board'of Zoning Appeals, Board of Building Appeals, and Board of Fire Appeals. Their functions were reconstituted into a five member Planning and Zoning Board and a five mem'ber Construction Appeals Board. The two boards combined form the Community Environment Commission,(CEC) which is mandated to meet qua rterly, or on the call of the chairman * The position of CEC Chair- man rotates quarterly between the two board chairmen. The board members are appointed-in a traditional manner each councilman and the Mayor names one member of each board. No particu- lar emphasis is placed upon their expertise or concern for.the envi- ronment, but city officials expect the members of the CEC to grow into the role of environmental experts. Their role as a major mechanism for citizen participation in the environmental management process has been clarified by the city's revised EIS guidelines which makes them part of the appeals process,. In summa.-ry, the organizational machi nery adopted in Inglewood suits its own political and administrative style. Any city contem- plating organizational alternatives for its own environmental manage- ment strategy must consider these elements too, and not merely transplant what has proven successful elsewhere --.organizational transplants (like organ transplants),require som .e minimal matching of supportive systems and behavior. CONCLUSION Inglewood's environmental management,program includes a wide range of activities, only some of which were examined in this report. Inglewood's program began with aircraft noise pollution but soon encompassed other sources of noise, and then other aspects of the environment were added. Their development of total impact analyses and their use of the environmental impact statement process (which predated the state's requirement)., involves' a still broader view of the environment. Their environmental management strategy ranges from preventative aspects (such a.s the inclus,ion of environment*al factors into governmental planning and.decision making, and programs such as Property Maintenance) to programs of active enforcement (such as the 313 civil and criminal suits they filed to reduce noise pollution). The strategy evolved as a result of-a number of factors. Public opinion,was supportive -- some might even say demanding -- of action to rid Inglewood of its aircraft noise problem; and public support continued as the prograr6 evolved. The city's governmen,tal deciston. makers played an active role In the development of the strategy to its present point; where they lacked expertise they moved-to acquire it through training, recrui-tment, or the-use of consul-tants. The strategy also developed because once the city played an active role and earned a reputation as an innovator) it strived to maintain that'image. Their program to combat noise pol'lution involved a wide range of activities. Although some of them have not been manifestly successful, progress has been made which can be attributed to the general, con- tinuing campaign waged by Inglewood. The use of civil suits has been a slow, costly, and so far unsuccessful strategy; their criminal suit against a pilot who violated their noise ordinance while landing at Los Angeles International Airport alto proved unsuccessful. The city is proud of its noise ordinance and it can be assumed to be successful despite the general weaknesses of such ordinances.* Determination to enforce clearly written standards is a major factor in making this environmental management strategy successful. The other elements of their ten point program can help make Inglewood a quieter city, when the measures are finally Implemented -- either by the city, or by the other private and public organizations that have the authority to act. Inglewood's Environmental Impact Statement process has proven successful -- not so much because it has killed environmentally damaging projects, but because it ha's introduced environmental con. siderations into the decision making process of both private developers as well as governmental decision makers. Its most serious problem may be the inability to accurately assess the environmental impact of a project, given the current state of available knowledge. Other criticisms of the process -- e.g., its cost, or the delay involved are minor, when compared to the benefits that can be gained if a project that is potentially harmful to the environment is blocked. But the technique requires dedicated administrators and vigil,ant citizen participation; the process can quite easily become a pro.forma exercise without these. Preventative programs, such as Inglewood's Property Maintenance Program, have a definite role in an environmental management strategy. It is too early, however, to tell whether Inglewood's program will be successful in improving the aesthetic environment and halting the need *See Stuart F. Lewin, Alan H. Gordon, and Channing J. Hartelius, 'Law and the Municipal Ecology (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, 1970). 314 for redevelopment projects. Since any code enforcement p'rogram requires financial assistance to be successful, the progra m may face difficultie� ahead. (See Addendum e for Notice of Property Maintenance Violations.). The observation has been made several times that successful environmental management requires programs and enforcement. There is no'single organizational arrangement that is best for all cities. Almost any arrangement can be made to be successful in.protecting the envi.ronment if that goal i-s shared by the citizenry, and dedicated policy makers and administrators. 315 ADD ENDUM a ENVrRONMENTAL VIPACT.STUDY GUIDELINES COVER SHEET A. PREPARING AGENCY: DATE.- STUDY REVIE ..W F. ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS DIV. DATE:: 3. PROJECT NALME: F. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT -UT-E DEPARTMENT.: C. PROJECT LOCATION: G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: DATE: -D. PROJECT MBER: 'The Environmental impact Statement.shall contain at least the following. Information: 1, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT a Purpose, function, cost b: How will it be accomplished 1. Equipment to be used 2. Schedule c. Who will be affected. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT,DURING CONSTRIUCTION. q a. Short term environmental benefits b. Short term environmental degradation Ill.. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AFTER CONSTRUCTION a. Long term environmental benefits Long term environmental degradation IV. ALTERNATIVES (include cost impact of alternatives) a. Alternatives to project as a whole b. Alternatives to methods of accomplishment V. TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING (if held) VI. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEARING AND DISPOSITION VII. SM24ARYi CONCLUSIONS AND RECM2-1ENDATIONS 316 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES CHECK LIST PURPOSE:. To insure that all important aspects of an environmental. evaluation are considered. It is an aid to Insure necessary 1con-oleteness.. PROCEDURE:. Makeacheck-mark.opoosite each item to indicate Ki vhether the proposed project will have an adverse A@ effect, no effect, or a beneficial effect.on the 'p Item in question. 1. 44 44 U @4 44 -.4W 14 44 w a w a > . 0 A. Land TransfoIrmatiozi and Constr ucti.o.n 17-L a. Compact Lon and 'Settling b. Erosion, c. Ground Cover. d. Deposition (Sedimentation, Precipitation).: a.:,Stability, (Slides) f..Stress-Strain' (Earthquake) g. Floods Waste Control Ii. Drilling and Blasting J. Operational Tailure., B. Use. a. Open Space Recreational c. Agricultural Residential e. Commercial 9. Industrial C. Water'Resourcea a. Quality b. Irrigation c. Drainage d. Ground Water. Air Qualit az a.@ Oxides (Sulfur, Carbom, Nitrogen) b Particulate Matter c. -Chemicals d. Odors e..:. -,..Cases 317 L4 0 t% fb r6 n lb 0 cr 0 cr lb 2: 0.0 w lb !r 10 tv ft m 0. n cr ft to 0 . . . . )@ . . . . . . m 03 0 1 It :3 1 1-- .4 PO c W ca :r rA $0 W hd CA 1-4 W w m 0 R m 0-3 gg 0 1 m m o :3 " n m " . lb 10 It " 39 m 2 . n 0 r -0 n M F- ?-- pf (D rt M I lb r. rt 0 0 m w 1-1 pt W m 11 .9 1-,0 rt c a :3 m r) 0 PC to fl, CL n m m1.- 0 I rA 0 A M P@ P,n @C A M n P-- C6 r? PV 0 rt M )" 0 't d, n 0 0 0 A, 0 H. 03 rt M 'A rt m @4 lb t. I- r, aq eb rt rt (n c m .4 cr rt m P@ Cn 0 W (M P. rl 09 m 0 lb 'o 0 0 0 (D cr 0 ::r 0 1-, -V rt to C: rt :3 :3 La 11 m pi :3 cn fn 2 m ri to g c6 v 1.4 n > F- rt rt V3 tr W. 0 0 m rt t.. 1-4 r to r? tn " P." rt 0 (a t.- ju m 0 fl) :3 r, 0 t- !3 :3 o m co w rt Adverse Effece No Effect rieneficial Effert Adverse Effect Opp @!o Ltl-(-Ct -octicial Effect PI!4 . . ....... ... . CO,V, ADDENDUM b. ADVERSE IMPACT UNIT DETERMINATION An attempt is made to quantify adverse environmental Impact of a project.' Two factors determine the value or quantity of an adverse Impact: the importance factor and the magnitude of adverse impact. Magnit-ude multiplied by importance factor yields the I'adverse impact u.nit." This unit is composed of a factual judgment (m gnitude) and,a subj Ive judgment (importance). The importance factor ex- presses. a preferential attitude of the author and magnitude determi- nation guided by documented facts. Magnitude'of Adverse Impact: I Negligible 2 Small 3 Moderate 4 Considerable 5 Extensive Importance Factors: I Slightly important (public inconvenienced; short term) 2 Important (controversial; hazardous; long term) Very important''(health and safety affected) 319 ADVERSE ENVIRO' ZMl TAL IMPACT UNIT MATRIX ?OR PROPOSED FREEWAY ALTERNATIVES A D V E R S E I M P A C T S Noise Air 4J 0 0 -A 0 14 44 9 Total 4 0 0. 0 a. 44 W Freeway U N C 0 1,1 '10 Adverse Impact 0 x U .2 0 rn U U3 N 04 to Alternative Units @N-Nl-N 5 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 .2 3 10 9 12 -9 12 15 .8 9 84 5 3 4 4 3 4 3 5 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1-0 -r912 12 9 12 9. 15 8 9 105 N-N3-C 4 6 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 8 18 12 .12 6 6 62 WN21 5 3 4 3 2 4 4 3 . 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 10 9 12 9 6 12 8 9 75 C 5 '5 5 3 5 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 10 15 15 9. 9 15 4 6 83 C-Cl-N 5 3 5 3 4 5, 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 10 9 15 9 12 15 6 6 83 S 2 2 4 3 4 4 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 6 12 12 .12 2 3 60 LECEND: Magn,ttude Impoitance factor Impact unit 320 MACT RATING SHEET (Completed Sarple: Water Treatment Plant), Importance Impact Zffect Xsenitude Factor Units Positive Social Effects 1. Improved water quell y 395 million people- 0.1 39.5 million days (present value) 2. 3. Total: 39.5 million Positive Environmental Effects 2. 3. Total Negative Social Effects Relocation of I family 2.5 people (equivalent) 42 2. Relocation of 2 63 people (equivalent) 16.7 businesses 3. .-Total 1,094 Negative Environmental Effects Noise & dust (plant 15,000 people days 1.2 (park 18,000 construction) . I (equivalent) ---- CaTre-c-t-ea) 2. -Noise & dust (pip line 2,000 people days @ 1.3 (resi- 2,600 'construction) -de-n-c-e-i-a-t-Fe-cced". 24,000 .3. Air pollution-from 20,000 people days 1.2 M "Ericity gengratio --Cp-..S.. WE t value) Total 44,600 Economic Value of one impact unit. $2.50 per person-day (equivalent) Economic benefits -0- Social benefits 98,750,000 EnvIrommental. benfits -0- Total Benefits Economic costs 8,000.000 Social costs 2,735 -..ternnl,, coats EnvLronmental costs 111,500 Total Cos%$ 8.114,235 1-4 321 ADDENDUM c. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE STATEMENT APPLICANT: 2. OWNER Name Name Address Address Telephone Telephone-- PROJECT LOCATION: Address -------------- Legal Description ZONE: PROJECT TYPE (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial or other),Specify: 6. PROJECT VALUE (excluding land): PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS: a. Square footage of site b. Square footage of buildings (including garages) c. Land coverage (as % of "7a") d. Landscaped area (as % of "7a'.) e. Number of stories f Building height g. Number of parking stalls, h. Number of dwelling units (res. only) i. Recreation area (as % of 117a") 322 YES NO 8. Does your project comply wi,th all pertinent rules and regulations of'the Los Angei6s'APCD? 9. Will your proj.pct require that heavy trucks or equipment use stre ,ets other than designated truck routes (after construction completed?) 10. Will your proposed project require any pickups .or deliveries between the hours of 10 PM.and 7 AM? H. Does your project include any machinery, l,oudspeaker, or-other equipment that will be audible beyond your property line? 12. Does your project include any equipment that may generate dust, fumes, odors, smoke, or steam noticeable beyond your property line? 13. Does your project consume any existing open space in Inglewood? 14. Will, any-construction acgivity take.place between, the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM? 15. Will-the proJect result in any significant increase in traffic or parking on any city streets? ..16. Are there any other signifi'cant shorv-term environmental impacts of thisproject?. 17. Are there any other significant long-term envi-ronmental Ampacts of'this project? I certify that the above facts are t rue and correct and recognize ...that development in Inglewood-must comply with all City of Inglewood ordinances and codes as well as all rules and regulations of the ..Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District. (Signature of Applicant) (Date) I concur with the above facts and find that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment provided the con- ditions listed below arelmet. 323 I concur.w,ith the above fact.s and find that Ois project may have a significant effect on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement is required. I do not concur with the above facts for the reasons stated below. An Environmental Impact Study is required. 'Chairman, -Environmental Review Committee TDateT 324 ADDENDUM d. CONDITI*dN,S REQUIRED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISS-ION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR EXPANSION OF AUTO SALES LOT That the applicant construct a decorative masonry wall 8 to 10 feet in height.alohg the entire Maple Street frontage,,set back a distance of 5 feet from the.property line with a setback at the north end and south end compatible with the existing resi- dential setback. The, des.ign of the wall, the height of the wall and the length anddesign of the transitions at the north and south ends shall be subject to the approval of the Planning and Development Director and the Police Department. 2. That applicant provide a wall not less than 6 feet in height between the property northward and the property southward. The material and height of the wall shall be approved by the Planning and Development Director. 3. That a 5 foot landscaped setback from the west property line shall be provided and supplied with an appropriate Irrigation system. Minimum landscaping acceptable shall include ground cover and 15 gallon grees at 50 foot intervals. Landscape plans indicating the type and placement of plant material and the design of the irrigation system are subject to'approval by the Planning and Development Director. 4. That the Maple Street parkway shall be landscaped with trees and appropriate ground. cover and maintained by -the property owner. Landscape plans indicating the type of plant material and the design of the Irrigation system are subject to approval by the Planning and Development Director. 5. That grading, paving and marking of the lot be according to re- quirements of the Inglewood Municipal Code. The lighting plan for the property including the height of the light standards shall be subject to approval by the Planning and Development Director. There shall be no direct illumination of adjacent residential areas.. 7. That no access or egress shall be permitted to the property from Maple Street. 8. That all curb-cuts on Maple Street are to be closed and matched with existing curb, gutter and sidewalk. Construction shall be to the standards required'by the City Engineer. 325 9. That no advertising signs shall be installed on the Maple Street frontage. 10. That the Traffic Engineer review the traffic patterns in the area and install all,appropriate control devices. H. That the noise levels resulting from any activity on the site shall not.exceed 50 dBA at the nearest property line of any residential property.. 12'.' That'the'applicant shall at his expense construct a storm drain on 98th Street from Maple to La Brea. The.storm drain shall be approved by the City Engineer. 13. iThat the applicant provide access gates for-emergency vehicles at the end of each alley abutting the property. The design and construction of the gates shall be approved by the Fire Chief. 326 ADDENDUM e. CITY OF INGLEWOOD CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS Address Date Pursuant to the Property maintenance ordinance, an inspection was made of your property and the following deficiencies as checked off were found to exist: 1. abandoned, boarded-up or partially destroyed building. Set. 9601(a)(o)(r-ix) 2. Unpainted buildings causing dry rot and termite infestation. Sec. 9601(b)(0) 3. Broken window constituting a hazard. Sec. 9601(c)(0) 4. Overgrown vegetation. Sec. 9601(d)(o) S. Storage of vehicles in front yard area. Sec. 9601(f)(c) 6. Dead trees, weeds and debris. Sec, 9601(e) 7. Abandoned vehicles. Sec. 9601(g)(i) 8. Discarded furniture. Sec. 9601(i) (o-ii) 9. Garbage cans stored so visible from the street. Sec. 9601(k)(o) 10. Structurally dilapidated, in need of repairs. Sec.9601(m)(o) 11. Violates fire resistive wall requirements. See. 9601(r-xw). 12. Other Remarks These conditions constitute a Public Nuisance. Corrective measures must be commenced within days and completed within days. Otherwise the matter will be turned over to the City Attorney for either misdemeanor or civil action. Questions concerning the above should be addressed to the Building Division at 674-7111, Ext. 274 between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. OFFICE USE ONLY Property Owner Building Inspector Address Building Division Planning and Development Department Inglewood, California Contacts 327 APPENDIX 4 REPORT ON THE FIELD TRIP TO MIAMISBURG, OHIO Introduction Miamisburg is a smallIcity (14,935 population) lying on the banks of the Great Miami River on the southern edge of the Dayton metropolitan area. Rapid growth is transforming Miamisburg from a small independent town to a larger suburban community. Growth trends for the entire metropolitan area indicate continued rapid expansion for the area south of Dayton, as completion of Interstate 75 makes commuting into Dayton for work much more convenient. Since 1968, the primary orientation of the City of Miamisburg has been toward preparing for the anticipated growth. A pro-annexation policy has resulted in adding 233 acres for a total of 7.5 square miles, and the city is straining to provide the essential capital improvements.. Anticipation of growth relates to a growing concern over environmental quality on the part of the citizens, their local elected officials and the municipal staff. The press of immediate problems has required that long-term planning efforts be carried out at the same time that new pro-@ grams are being implemented. In the lastfew years, the City of Miamisburg initiated the following environmental programs: *Comprehensive Planning. In November 1969 the Comprehensive Development Plan was adopted as a standard for future planning. *Mayor's Beautification Committee. A 15-member committee whose primary mission is to develop and recommend to the city council programs designed to improve the city's appearance and physical environment was established. *Solid Waste. Plastic trash can liner program was initiated where bags,could be obtained from city building or boy scouts at $3.00 for fifty bags. In July, 1970 the city put into effect a more efficient system of collection routes in conjunction with a new refuse storage and collection ordinance. Recently, the city switched to specially designed one-man vehicles for refuse collection. In early 1970 they began using South Montgomery County Reduction plant (annual cost $42,000) to dispose of trash rather than land- fill method ($7.90/ton). 328 *Water. In February, 1970 a 25 year Wastewater Treatment Master Plan was adopted. In May, 1970 the@city authorized a $2,000 voluntary contribution to the Miami Conservancy District for a demonstration and study of oxygen aerators for the Great Miami River. In September, 1969 new chlorination facilities were added to the city wastewater treatment plant, providing compliance with state and federal water standards (2.2@mgpd capacity). A one million gallon water tank was built to insure adequate emergency water s,torage. A sect,ion, of trunk sewer was completed, thus eliminating two lift stations which were sources of pollution. *Open Space. A MasterPark Acquisition Plan was adopted. In May, 1971 the Council established a "park fee" to.,be paid on each building permit issued for the construction of a residential structure in the City (see Addendum B). An abandoned sewage treatment plant was converted into a park. While it is important to do everything possible with-in a single community to alleviate environmental problems, many transcend local political boundaries and many require solutions that exceed the capacity of any single jurisdictions. Briefly, the primary environmental problems facing the City.of Miamisburg and the entire metropolitan areas as identified chiefly by the,"State of the Environment" report issued by the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, are: Water'Pollution -- The major sources of pollution for the Great Miami River are industrial and municipal discharges (treated and untreated). In the past the BOD level has failed to meet estab- lished standards. However, water quality has consistently improved since 1960. Another pollution threat is that of toxic waste spills. One paper company was fined $60,000 fordamages resulting from such a spill. Air Pollution -- The most serious air pollution problem is dust- fall and suspended particulates, the latter emanating from industries and steam-electric plants. At major street inter- sections, the level of carbon monoxide exceeds state standards. Other standards may be violated near major emission sources. The trend over the past few years has been a dramatic decrease in most types of air pollution. Solid Waste -- Solid waste disposal -is particularly important because of its potential for contaminating the ground water, the 329 [email protected] area's drinking water. @T he problem is finding a @means of.di.sposal with minimal environmental impact. Unregulated Growth -- Urban sprawl threatens to become more serious resulting in the risk of losing valuable agricultural land and.natural areas. When seeking solutions to problems such as these that are common to this. regional.area, it is necessary to 'consider what is catled the Miami Valley Region.: The Region covers 2,300 square mi.les and nearly one million people. Thereare five counties in the area recognized as the Miami Valley; 16,ci.ti,es; 54 villages; 69 townships; 65 school,districts, and 48 other special purpose districts a total of 252 separate jurisd,ic- tions. The remainder,of this.report then focuses on some of the key environ- mental-programs in t'he Miami Valley and the various regiona-I arrange- ments utilized to -i 'mplement them. These include: (1) the-Miami .Conservancy District, which was created in 1914 in response to a disastrous flood.and whi,chhas extended its functions to include water quality; (2) the Montgomery County Combined General Health District, a single agency covering five counties for combatting air pollution; (3) the@Montgomery County Sanitation Department, which provides county-wide incineration for refuse; (4) the Monsanto,-Research Corporation Mound Laboratory,,which in cooperation with the Atomic Energy Commission, attempts to Ineutrali.ze its own impact.on the environment; and, (5) the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, which serves to coordinate the environmental efforts of a five-county area. When there is a proliferat,ion of governmental jurisdictions in.an area, as is often the case in many metropolitan areas, the effectiveness of individual units,. to meet environmental problems is limited. Service levels and tax burdens vary,economi,es of scale are unrealized, and often the jurisdic-! tion is not large enough@ to encompass the source of pollution. In the Miami Valley there has been increasing emphasis, on regional approaches to solving environmental problems. TH E MIAMI CONSERVANCY DISTRICT In the spring of 1913 from_.9 to 11 inches of rain fell on the Miami Valley over a five day period, The,resulting destruction of the 1913 flood,to the communities built in.the flood p.lains totaled over 300 people dead and property damage of $100 million plus. The first order of business, once some seeming normalcy was established was to work.togethdr to form.a protective plan which would end flood threats. Over 23,000 citizens of the valley raised in excess of $2 million in cash for flood control. There were two major institutional changes resulting from the disaster. First, citizens formed a council-manager government in the City of Dayton. 330 Secondi in response to public demand, a speci'al session-of the Ohio legislature was called in 1914 which enacted the Ohio Conservancy Act, the basis for creating conservancy districts throughout Ohio. Founded in 1915 under the Conservancy Act to combat area flooding, the Miami Conservancy District was created as a political subdivision of the State of Ohio. It had the power to levy assessments, borrow money, condemn land to provide f.lood protection, and plan, construct and, main- tain structures.' The Conservancy District does not have the power to ' enforce regulations or to prosecute violators; State and*local enforce- ment agencies perform these functions. The District's area'of concern is defined not by county, city or township lines, but"by the geographical watershed of-the streams and rivers involved. Responsibility for the District is in the hands of t'he Conservancy Court, which is made'up of nine.common pleas judges; one each from'the Ohio counties included: Butler, Clarke, Greene, Hamilton, Miami, Montgomery, Preble, Shelbyi and Warren. A three-man board.of directors is appointed by the Court to supervise the development and execution of the District's act-ivities and responsibilities. These men-appoint an op6rat-ing staff for day to day management@ Originally the Conservancy@Distrlct had responsibility only for,flood control. The-flood control plan they developed provides protection from a storm 40 percent greater than the 1913 storm. Five large earthen dams on the main stem of the Great Miami and four of its tributaries (Laramie, Stillwater, Twin Creek, Mad), together with levees and channel improve- ment in the major cities of Miami, Montgomery, and But.ler counties, provide the residential and commercial communities with as effective a flood protection system as may be found anywhere in the U. S. The original Miami system was completed in 1922 at a cost of $38 million. Areas which were rural in 1915 but are: urban today have s'ince-asked to participate in the district and have been extended protection. Si=e World War 11, $12 million in flood control has-been added. The Conservancy District flood protection goal.yet to be achieved is the purchase of all the land in the flood plains.' In addition to providing added protection from floods, this would provide a related recreational benefit. Even now, since the dams are "dry" dams (only storing water during floods), the wooded areas on the upstream side of the dams are ]eased to the Montgomery County Park District for recreational use.. The Miami Conservancy District broadened its scope when it became directly involved in water quality after passage of the national water quality act in 1965. A committee was formed Under the sponsorship of the Dayton Chamber of Commerce representing all permit holders, including industries, counties and municipalities, as an act of resist-ance to the stabdards proposed for the Miami River. The District served in a technical advisory capacity to-this committee. 331 In 1967 the Conservancy District was charged by the State of Ohio with ,responsibility for planning, developing and guiding an effective pro- gram for Improving water quality in the District's watershed. The work to date has been financed mainly by six counties and 53 industries and municipalities holding Ohio permits to discharge wastes Into the Great Miami River and Its tributaries. In addition, substantial Federal funds were provided in the form of a grant from the Federal Water Quality Administration. A three year study resulted in the following program recommendations: (1) water quality management; (2) stream appearance; (3) in-stream aeration; (4) low flow augmentation; (5) regional treat- meht of non-aqueous wastes; and, (6) regional wastewater treatment. 1. The.Water Quality Management Program has been functioning since 1967. It involves water measurement, testing and analysis. It provides the data on which other water-related judgments and recommendations have been made. The District has set up 36 sampling stations along the Miami River and its tributaries. Six of these are monitored continuously and the remainder are sampled only periodically. In addi- tion samples are taken at 60 outfalls on the river at random intervals throughout the year (more samples are taken by the U. S. Geological Survey and the State Natural Resources Department). Stream survey data collected by the District as part of the sampling network is analyzed and computerized to develop a mathematical description or "model" of the river. Data in the model Includes temperature, dissolved oxygen, stream flow, environmental conditions, and the like. By altering one of the variables, the model will describe changes in the total river. Thus, the,model is valued as a planning tool. 2. The streamappearance program Is being pursued In several ways,-'including contacting those landowners and operators permitting or contributing to undesirable stream appearance. The regulatory.and enforcement powers of the State (Division of Wildlife) or local law enforcement agencies (as in the case of zoning) are enlisted when necessary. In the summer teenagers are employed to clean up along the river. 3. The first mechanical aerator was put in operation on the river in the summer of 1970. Since then two more have been added. In essence, the aerators work like a giant eggbeater, stirring up the water and exposing It to the air. Transfer of oxygen to the water not only helps sustain aquatic populations, but also aids the natural decomposition process. Experimentation with other methods of aeration, such as air Injection and pure oxygen transfer, is.also planned. 4.- Studies show that adding water to the Great Miami River at Dayton during the dry season to maintain a rate of flow of at 332 least 600 cubic feet per second would help maintain required water quality standards. Boosting the flow of the river would be needed only during that part of the year when the stream cannot flow at this rate unassisted. All other things being equal, the greater the volume and velocity of the flow, the more effective the stream's.a'bility to assimilate'wastes and the faster high-temperature effluent's,are--cooled. The Ohio Water.Pollution Control Board has required'that low flow augmentation be included in any water quality plan proposed for the Great Miami River Basin. 5. The development of regional facilities for the collection and destruction of non-aqueous liqyid,residuals, e,.g.9 gasoline, oil, paints, solvents, etc.,.Is essential for any plan to maintain water quality. Private enterprise is currently being encouraged to develop appropriate treatment facilities. Fail-. Ing this, the District plans to undertake the task. 6. In 1968,the City of Franklin, Ohio, approached the District for a,ss,Istance. They were under orders to clean up their effluent discharge. The problem was compounded by five paper mills'also discharging in the same area. The District.con- structed an area wastewater treatment plant near Franklin to serve the city and its five paper mills and capacity to serve an area of 75 s-quare miles. By agreement, Franklin collects the wastewater,''regulates discharges'lnto'the'@system, and delivers it to the plant, which is operated by the District. Design criteria for such regional water treatment facilities include ability to a6commodate@ changing loads, variable stream conditions, ne .w water quality standards, increased user participation, and the latest technological techniques. There are financial savings'also due to a single location, lower total equipment cost, lower costs for power and chemi- cals, a centralized laboratory and a smaller highly qualified staff. The Franklin Environmental Control Complex. The wastewater treatment facility In Frankl4n Is unique for several reasons. For one thing, It Is built adjacent to and designed to com- plement a so'lid waste recovery and disposal facility (also located on District-owned land). The.two waste facilities work together In a mutually supportive manner: as one treat S wastew'ater Including the wastewater from.the recycling plant, the other disposes of solid waste, Including recovered waste material (sludge) from wastewater treatm*ent. Also, the purified effluent from the wastewater plant,is used as the process And cooling water supply for the solid waste plant, and 'the ash from the solid waste plant is used as a set-t,ling agent In the wastewater clarifier (See Figure 1). Project engineers estimate that th1s rela,tion reduced capital costs alone by 40%. 333 F I GURE I FRANKLIN ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COMPLEX FLOW DIAGRAM SECONDARY INDUSTRIAL CLARIFIER CLARIFIER SOIL STABILIZATION TO GREAT MIAMI RIVER DISTRIBUTION CHAMBER IN,)us,rRIAL AERATION BASINS V'z,4STE WATE CHLORINATOR NO. I NO. 2 NO. 3 f4i U N I C I PA L WASTE WATER -JUNCTION NON-AQUAEOUS CHAMBER LIQUIDS SECONDARY MUNICIPAL CLARIFIER SCRUBBER WATER BLEED PROCESS WATER BLEED t RIFIER PROCESS WATER - - - - - - - - - -4i. i -J EXHAUST GASSES @BLENDi HOUSEj II L HYDRAIPULPER LIQUID CYCLONE PRESS MUNICIPAL COOLING WATER REFUSE FIBRECLAIM TO SCRUBBER JUNKIER FLUID BED VEN URI RECOVERED1 REACTOR SCIR 8 ER -RECOVEREPLT- FIBRE WASTEWATER TO TREATMENT PLANT FERROUS Lt METAL RECLAIME6GLASS I GLAS L -d -4 RECOVERY NONRECOVERABLE I ,---fL r--------- INORGANICSTO FILL RECLAIMED ALUMINUM To M A G M T R 0 I E RA, T @HRINA R'VER Lo 07 N N AQUAEOUS IOUID CYCLONE FIBRECLAIM @PRE T L'C'PAL @KER SS FUSE 0 jUN F LUI DBED RECO%@@@ REACTO R U 8 SOURCE: The Black Clawson Company .Regional Wastewater Treatment P-lant. The wastewater treatment plant has a capacity of 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and is currently handling about 2.5 mgd. The effluent entering the plant (approximately 1100 pm) averages five times the strength of "normal" raw'sewage. The lowest recorded removal rate was 93.5%. The plant Is completely automated, requiring only one operator approximately 30 hours per week. Sampling and monitoring is tied into a computer at the-District's headquarters in Dayton. All critical plant functions are alarmed, with any failure activating a self-dialin� telephone to the police dispatcher. There are complete backup systems, Including standby generators. Should an emergency arise piUttI'ng a primary clarifier out of service, the system is set up so that the entire flow can be diverted to the,other clarifier. If both clarifiers,should malfunction, wastewater can be diverted directly into one of the three aeration basins. There is-no bypass available allowing untreated wastes to discharg'@-dlrectly into the Great Mlam,i River. (See Figure 2.). The Hydrasposal/Fl.breclaim Solid Waste Recycling Plant. To meet an Immediate problem In 3isp6sing of 'Its:solid wastes and to accommodate Its future needs, the City of Franklin, Ohio embarked on a pl'an with a pr@ivate business, the Black Clawson .Company,, to build a solid waste recovery plant. The idea for the plant wa,s initiated by'a.Franklin City Councilman employed by Black Clawson. The plant was constructed under:a*two-thirds,@rant from the Bureau of So.lid Waste Management, U. S. Publ Health Service, HEW (now the office of Solid Waste@Management Programs, EPA). Ground-breaking ceremonies were held -in,September, 1970 and the plant went Into operation In mid-June, 1971. The plant is 'being operated by Black Claw6on Fibreclalm, Inc., under a management contract wi-th thelcity. The p,Tant is designed to handle a.capacity of-150 tons per day. However,, they@are,,@currently,operating,at 'the level of 50 tons per day. Private haulers bring refuse to the plant and are charged $6.50 per ton for disposal. Through a variety of processes, the,plant then separate's ferrous metals, aluminum, glass and paper fibres for reuse. :The non-recoverable organic materials, plus the sewage sludgejs fed into an incinerator for burning...Non-recoverable inorganic materials are taken to a landfill (see Figure 3 for a breakdown on the types of materials treated and their final,disposition). To controt its own-environmental impact, the facilities were located on a large tract of ground on the outskirts of Franklin. A high volume,,air sampler is logated nearby to test the air 335 FIGURE 2 FRANKLIN AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SITE PLAN Aeration Basins No. I No..2 No. a a Aerators Secondary Clarifiers Secondary Building Primary Clarifiers Primary,----- Chlorination Tank Building Outlet Great Scale Miami River Hydraposal,/ Fibreclaim Plant SOURCE: Miami Conservancy District 336 FIGURE 3 HYDRASPOSAL/FIBREtLAIM MATERIAL BALANCE DELIVER PROCESS RETURN TO TMOSPHERE LAND LBS. MATERIAL RECYGLE 25 WATER 25 10 METALS 3.5 .0.5 (A L U M.) 6 (IRON) GLASS 4 ........... 4 (GLASS) FOOD ............... 2 PLASTICS YARD WASTES TEXTILES 31.5(ENERGY) 5.5(ASH) PAPER 18 (PAPER) 00 56-.5 15.0 28.5 100 MATERIAL BALANCE JIM"ASPOSAL FIBRECLAIM SOURCE: The Black Clawson Company 337 quality. And, test wells are used to sample ground water for contamination. These wells found some.initial contamination, but this no longer seems to be a problem. The City of Miamisburg and the Miami Conservancy District are jointly studying the feasibility of connecting the Miamisburg wastewater plant to the Franklin regional plant for excess flows above the design capacity of the Miamisburg plant and for sludge disposal. Additional tasks In the water quality area that the District is undertaking are: (1) building and operating two additional regional treatment plants, and (2) studies of landfill contamination of ground water and the movement of pollution in aquifers. Money to operate District programs comes from three sources. Flood con- trol funds are obtained via a property tax long collected for District by the County Auditors. Water quality programs are funded by fees charged the discharge permit holders. And wastewater treatment costs, e.g., the Franklin plant, are charged to the users through the City. The example of the Conservancy District Is an Important one for the region because of the pattern of intergovernmental cooperation it has been setting for nearly sixty years. The philosophy of the District has been to restrlct@ltself to the field of water management, to avoid duplication of efforts, and to act as a service agency or resource for businesses and governments. District General Manager L. Bennett Coy admitted that "minor" conflicts exist, certainly. "Sometimes regional planners act as thou!gh they were the real professionals in'the water field -- knowing the best treatment for a given area -- controlling population growth by suggesting negative action on sewer and water applications ... On the other hand cities often Ignore the possibilities of real benefits by regional or sub-regional action -- particularly In the waste treatment and water supply areas... Similarly, special districts, with their highly technic:al staffs may take positions in areas well beyond their expertise and capability, particularly In regard to population shifts and matters allied to water use, but beyond their jurisdiction. "But in our area, in the Miami Valley, we have found a way to overcome most, if not all, of those problems. Basically, and for lack of a better phrase, we have evolved, by trial and error, a' relationship that may be termed comparable to that of a "consenting adult" situati 'on. We do things together that may not be well covered by law, but that.' In the long run, are for the general good of the area and certainly ben;ficial to the participants.." For example, the District-provides comments on all water- sewer applications via the A-95 process conducted through two of the re- gional planning agencies in the Miami Valley., Also, the District, with information provided by cities, counties and regional agencies, developed 338 the Water Quality Improvement Plan for the Great Miami River.. In the few years the Miami Conservancy Distr 'ict.has had responsibility for water quality, a totally Integrated wastewater planning and management system has not been achieved. However,.the trend,has been toward develop- Ing a coordinate@d regional program, and substantial progress has been made through the development of a regional,plan and construction of regional facilities. As the regional wastewater system continues to develop, it is not yet ,certain.what the'institutional framework will be. Recent federal legis- lation (Section,208 of the,1972 Water Pollut,ion Contro-I Act Amendments) encourages,regional systems. However,,both the special districts, e.g., the Miami Conservancy District, and the regional councils, e.g., the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, are competing for the role. MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMBINED,GENERAL HEALTH DISTRICT At one ti,me each township, village and cl,ty in.Montgomery County had its own.health officer, who, on a part-time basis, carried out many of the same functions that a-sanitation Inspector performs today. In 1918 the State adopted legislation.611'owing:the-formation of General Health Dis- tricts.a,s political subdivisions of.the State of Ohio with responsibility for health functions. The General Health Districts are governed by an advisory board consisting of representatives from member townships, villages, p and cities. The advisory commission appoints a 5-member board of health. In the Miami Valley the.larger incorporated urban areas generally created their own *-health agencies, while the Montgomery County General Health Dis- trict covered the remainder of the.area. In 1956 thefirst air.-pollution,regulation In the area was designed for the City of Dayton. At that time', neither,business nor government seemed too interested in taking preventative measures against air pollution. Dayton's interest stemmed from attempts.to curb the emissions from their Incinerator. They.eventuall,y assembled a three-person staff l.ocated in @the Department of Ser-vice.s and Buildings.., Thi.s,staff served as technical resource's in.the area for several years. The Montgomery County General Health District passed its first a.ir pollution regulations in 196rO and began a modestenforcement program. This,was done to provide uniform standards for area inside the County as wel-I as the City, as the City began,tQ move against some asphalt plants. When the Clean Air Act.of .1963.w@s passed, grants became,available for training on air pollution,. This ena@jed,t-hle Health District staff to gain. valuable expertise of their own. In 1967 Montgomery County.became one of.,the f-irst counties in Ohio to study air-pollution. Beginning with an Initial. grant of $20,,000 ($15,000 in-kind) from the County and $5,000 from the City OF Dayton, a $75,000 federal grant was received for a two year study identifying local air pollution problems. 339 As a result of the 1967 Clean Air Act, the Air Pollution Control Section of the Health District was able to develop several programs aimed at controlling and reducing air pollution. One of the first actions was to purchase a mobile tral ler to be used as a testing laboratory, Today there are six mobile laboratories and 64 sampling stations. The sampling stations are located on public sites such as fire stations or schools throughout'the region. In March, 1971 the Combined General Health District was formed as agree- ments were reached with five counties -- Montgomery, Miami, Greene, Clarke, and Preble -- and the City of Dayton, to provide an air pollution program. Subsequently the size of the Montgomery County Combined General Health District health board was expanded to nine..members -- five from Dayton. While these.counties have centraltzed.health functions in County Health Districts, most of the larger cities retained their health boards. Thus each policy change made by the Combined Health District must receive approval from each of the city and health district boards. A few commu- nities, e.g., Oakwood, have maintained their own staff. However, they still contract with the Montgomery County Combined Health District for the air pollution control program (See AddendumC) . Originally Health District funding was principally charges levied against member jurisdictions. This limited source of revenue permitted few extensive or new programs. The development of the successful air pollu-_ tion control programs by the Montgomery County Combined Health District was dependent upon outside funding. The current budget provides for a staff of approximately 30 and a total budget of approximately three- quarters of a million dollars. Based on air pollution data compiled over the years, the level of pollution has decreased in virtually every category. Compliance has generally been achieved without major litigation, although often hearings before the board were necessary to confirm intent to enforce the standards. Perhaps one of the most innovative and unique efforts within the Reg-ional Air Pollution Control Agency Is an unusual combination of law enforcement -and ecology that has resulted In an environmental patrol program. The overall strategy of the program has been to teach policemen to become environmentalists. Experienced police officers with an Interest in eco- logy are trained to deal with violations of the "environment". Wearing green uniforms with an ecology patch on one sleeve and a gun on,one hip, the environmental policemen patrol several neighboring counties watching .out for flagrant environmental violations such,as Illegal dumping or potential health hazards such as rabid d 'ogs. They Issue citations similar to parking tickets that warn the abuser to correct the violation within five days or else appear In court. Although the idea of gun-toting environmentalists disturbed quite a,few Individuals, the psychological effect of the men In greenappearing before community groups and schools voicing the legal aspect of ecology, has strengthened their role In the protection of the environment.. 340 What has been responsible for the success of this program? Perhaps the most important factor has been the leadership,and support of local offi- cials.. Officials have backed up the enforcement efforts In the face of charges that industries would be forced to leave town or shut down. Second, there has been widespread public support from both the business community and citizen groups. Movement within the citizens of the Mont- gomery County area began with the efforts of the local Tuberculosis Association and,gradually expanded Into what is now called CAC -- Citizens for Cleaner Air Committee. CAC has encouraged stronger regulations. In addition, the Chamber of Commerce became supportive of the air pollution program. A third'positive factor Is the ordinance Itself, which Is reported to be one of the strongest in the Nation. Finally, the ability to address the prob1em of air pollution on a regional basis has increased effectiveness. MONTGOMERY COUNTY SANITATION DEPARTMENT Until three years ago, solid waste in Miamisburg and most of Montgomery County was disposed by means of landfills. As early as 1956, however ' Improper landfill operation and a dwindling supply of available land led county officials to consider other alternatives. Public concern, spurred by newspaper coverage, developed over the threat of ground water contami- nation from landfills. This had major Implications for all localities, since virtually all of the drinking water In the area comes from under- ground rivers. At the same time the county began Investigating Incineration, the City of Dayton decided that their own Incinerator needed to be replaced. Subse- quently, a consultant study for the Montgomery County Health Department led to the recommendation that a county-wide disposal system be established where 'solid waste would be collected and transported via transfer,stations to incinerators for disposal. It was further recommended that the incin- erators be owned and operated by the county because of their greater borrowing power.. Finally, the study proposed.that two incinerators be constructed initially. A companion study vas conducted to determine the equitable locations for the Incinerators. Essentially It recommended that one be located In the north and one in the south.@ The precise location became quite a political issue, as no community wanted the incinerator within their boundaries, but they did want it to be-convenient for lower transportation costs. Eventually, one was located in the county and the other in the City of Moraine. The site selected in the City of Moraine was predominantly industrial land that had been reclaimed from a landfill. In return for accepting an incinerator, Moraine received a new road. The system was designed in 1958 and was later updated to antici pated EPA standards. Construction began in 1967 and.operation began in 1970. Cost of the capital facilities totaled approximately $8 million. Once the plant was constructed, the County Health Department began closing land- fills. Currently all landfills in the County are closed except for three 341 that can accept no domestic waste. One of the peimary.sources of con- tention came from the private-haulers, because it increased their operating cost. Private haulers remain one of the major problems faci.ng the system today. It is known that some garbage is transported out of. the county for disposal. The County receives assistance from most municipalities Jn enforcing the !Incineration lawt and the C'ounty.even trails garbage t.rucks with an airplane in an attempt to reduce the. "boot I egg 1 ng. The incinerators have a capacity for 300 tons per.day each, with built-in expansion capability. Currently the north plant is operating at 50 per- cent of,capacity and the south plant at around 90 percent. The large difference*in utilization reflects a much more r*apid growth In-the southern section of the metropolitan area than was anticipated. It is estimated the system handles 75 percent of the petrucible garbage in the county. Approximately a 90 percent reduction is achieved. The originally cost of refuse disposal at the incinerator was $3.50 per ton. Until recently haulers were charged $7.90 per ton. Now, however, the rates have increased dramatically to $12-50 per ton. Plus, the county subsidizes the operation 42 cents on every ton. The system is operated by the County Sanitation Department-, under service agreements with the local governments in the County (see the attached agreement, Addendum d, between the City of Miamisburg and Montgomery County). Generally; the agreements cover all solid Iwaste with the possible exception of some materials that are part of recycling programs. For example, the cities of Oakwood and Miamisburg shred brush or old Christmas trees for use as mulch, and Oakwood also collects newspapers separately and sells them for recycling (thus far the returns from the sale has been sufficient to meet operating costs). seven of thirteen municipalities In the County have formal contracts. The remaining-six - cities participate and. pay on a fee basis. The cost per ton is the same. The agreements also provide for an Advisory Board to the program made up of six members; one_ appointed by the County, one by the City of Dayton, one by the Montgomery County Mayor's and Manager's Association, one by the Dayton area Chamber of Commerce, one by the recognized association of refuse haulers. While the purpose of this group Is to resolve problems, in practice there is some question as to its effectiveness. One board member explained that the board is not really used. The system is presently having difficulties with environmental problems. An attempt is being made to recycle the process water used. However, the pH of the water is so low (acidic) that it causes majorcorrosion damage to pipes and stacks. Disposal of the ash residue is also a prob- lem. This material is not exempt from the County landfill ban. Conse- quently, it is piled beside the incinerator, waiting for a decision on what to do with it. The major environmental problem 1-s the failure of the incinerators to meet the air quality standards. The County Air Pollution Control Section recently obtained an order to "cease and desist" the pollution of the air. This problem developed as a result of changing 342 air quality standards. The recent adoption of stricter standards put the Incinerator emissions above the allowable level of particulates. The a:ir polluiion'problem has directly contributed to the financial crisis and the rate Increase to $12-50 per ton. The anticipated modifications will cost an est'Imated $4 million. The rate Increase will have an imme- diate Impact on cities (Miamisburg's costs will Increas'e $40,000, and many local officials were threatening to break their contracts.) Among'the longer raInge alternatives being considered as solutions to the environmental, problems are: @(1) the development and sale of steam; and (2) the use of residue to fill the open pit mines in the southeastern part of the state. 343 MIAMI VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION The Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) membership consists of five counties -- Clarke, Greene, M@ami, Montgomery, and Preble -- and 31 municipalities in the Dayton metropolitan area. These jurisdictions represent 97 percent of the regional population. Each county appoints two members to the Commission and each municipality appoints one. These members are predominantly elected officials. Funds to operate MVRPC come from membership assessments, local money for special projects, and federal grants. Membership fees are assessed at the rate of 15 cents per capita (counties pay for unincorporated areas only). A few special projects for local agencies are funded separately. The balance of the budget is derived from federal grants, primarily the HUD "701 Program".. MVRPC concern for the quality of the environment dates back to the "State of the Region Report" in 1966, where the problems of air and water pollu- tion were summarized and the future impact projected. The Commission's role in environmental management includes chiefly the following eff 'orts: (1) tec hnical assistance; (2) planning assistance; (3) A-95 review; and (4) promotion of public participation. :In general, the goal of the Commission is to serve as a vehicle for coordinating policies and plans throughout the regional area. MVRPC has both an environmentalist and water management specialist on the staff to act as technical assistance resources. An attempt has been made to avoid building a staff duplicating expertise in another agency. Con- sequently, the Commission often relies upon existing resources, e.g., the county air pollution staff, or local university staff for noise expertise. In 1967 MVRPC publi.shed a report on'the "Natural Resources of the.Miami Valley Region." The purpose of the report was to inventory the natural resources of the region,.analyze some of the*associated problems, and make recommendations relative to managing these resources. Topics discussed include: geology and minerals, soils, water, biological resources (e.g., fish, wildlife), climate and precipitation, flood plain encroachment, water pollution, air pollution, and policy issues and recommendations for proper maintenance and use of resources. This report served as the technical base for the consideration of other.environmental programs throughout the region. Another example of the technical assistance-provided is the "Status Report on the Quality of the Environment" published in 1970. This report attempts to critically evaluate the broad range of environmental problems and programs over the entire regional area, including air pollution, water pollut,ion, solid waste, unregulated development, noise, and aesthetics. Not only does'this report evaluate current programs ' but it also recommends future action needed. The report requires action to be taken by no one, except as may be persuaded,by the validity of the arguments. MVRPC staff has also provided assistan ce in preparing environmental impact statements (e.g., Environmental Impact Statement on Iron Horse Park, 1972). 344 This assistance has been offered to both public agencies as well as citizen groups. Generally,agencies contract with MVRPC for the work and finance the cost incurred.. Work for citizen groups has been, in part, at partial charge. The environmental planning efforts.of MVRPC began in 196T-w.ith.-the issuance of the.,Open Space Plan (the plan:was updated in 1972). Other plans include water and sewer master plans and programs for al-I five counties, and the Miami Valley Regional Bikeway Plan. These planning efforts were made possible primarily through the availability of federal financing. MVRPC has been designated by the federal government as the.A-95 review agency for the.region. As,such, it has the authority to review all federally aided projects in the region to insure their consistency with areawide planning efforts. Recently the State of Ohio extended similar authority to review state financed projects. The review process:pro- vides a mechanism to relate programs in various functional areas (e.g water, housing) as well as.programs.developed by different jurisdictions (e.g., sewage treatment in Franklin and Miamisburg). The review carries with it the sanction of withdrawing approvallfor projects and thus the loss of the federal or state-funds.. An example in point is the case where two,small municipalities only a few miles apart each decided to seek Independently federal funds for the construction of:sewage treatment facilities. MVRPC, supported by technical assistance from the Conservancy District, found that two separate plants would result in unnecessary duplication and expense. Thus approval was withheld. Also, MVRPC has been quite aggressive in the use of A-95 review procedures for,implement- Ing "fair share housing" in the region. MVRPC has been an active proponent of citizen participation in the decision-making process in the reg,ion*. In the previously mentioned,"Status Report on the Quality of the Environment" MVRPC repeatedly criticizes envi-i@o@mental aSencies for their failure to involve-citizens. The key elements'of MVRPC's-citizen involvement.program are information and oppor- tunity. The extensive publications program of the Commission is aimed at providing some of this information for cit.izens. Also, the-A-95 review process includes circulating.copies of.plans and policies to interested parties, including citizen groups'. And in some cases, the Commission has gone so far as to provide the staff assistance necessary to publish.news- letters for citizen groups, e.g., the Stillwater River Association, a nonprofit environmental group "dedicated to the preservation of the beautiful and natural Stillwater River." As with most regional- planning commissions across the nation, the future of MVRPC is far from predetermined. The effectiveness,of the Commission has been limited because (1) financial constraints tie planning-efforts to areas that*are eligible for federal funding; and (2) the absence of authority to implement plans. The role of the Commission over the next five years is not yet clearly defined. Discussions are underway in the,region concerning combining 345 the Commission with the local Council of Governments.-.In addition the State of Ohio is developing a system of substate districtsi with the impact on MVRPC yet to be determined. Finally, the Federal@Government, under Section 208 of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, seems to be willing to allow special districts, such as the Conservancy District, to assu.me some of the re'sponsibil ityr for fOnctton'al"planning. All of these event's lead to a general atmosphere of uncertainty for the future. CONCLUSION Several different types,of regional arrangements,for environmental management are, b6ing.usdd In the Miami Valley area, Including: conser- vancy dlstrict,,multi-cou-nty health district, contracts for county-wide @refuse disposal, joint (federal e- private -'Iocal),facilitles, and regional planning commission. The specific examples described,are not "ideally" successful, and are constantly challenged by new problems. i However, they do represent attempts bh'thi part .of several jurisdictions to address environmental problems on theft regional basis. The regional approach to environmental management illustrated In this report does not Include an example of a tingle 611-encompassing regional environmental agency. Rather a unique arrangement was devised-for each problem as it arose. This approach has the advantage of increasing the likelihood of political acteptancerby the various-jurisdictions and providing a structure responsive to particular problems. The disadvantage of using a variety of regional approaches is that there is a need to look at environmental management in a comprehensive manner, e.g., what is the impact of this meithod of solid waste disposal on air quality. This perspective does not exist In the Miami Valley, except through the reglohal@planning commission. While the MVRPC'fulfilis this role in part, their activities. still a@e not inclusive of all segments of the environment on a continuing and in-depth bas is. It is clear from this study that no one regional approach is the solution for all problems in all regions. This is primar-ily because the problems vary from area to area. Second, the size and scope of a region may change from problem area to problem area. Also, the Institutional framework, both existing and what is potehtially.acceptable,, Is different between regions. The key to adopting a regional approach is not the technical problems but the p6litical-administrative problems. Governmental juris- dictions are not likely to work for regional programs solely for the sake of having regional programs. There must be a perceived benefit, such.as lower cost, to offset the accompanying liabilities, which may Include some loss of autonomy. Achieving a situation where each of several jur.is- diction perceives a "net" benefit is not an easy task. What, then, are the factors that have led the Miami Valley into regional programs? Some of the factors are: 346 1. Common Environmental Problems'and Ctlsis@ Banding together to rebuild after the flood orto@meet water quality standards is an example. 2. High degree of Professionalism. ICMA survey results substan- greater local cooperation among council-manager cities. 3. Conscious Efforts to Cooperate. For example, regular meetings of area mayors - and managers are held to discuss current problems. And, the City,of Dayton has designated a staff liai- son with the suburban communities. Factors such@as these obviously are present in areas throughout the nation and make regIonal arrangements a viable strategy.for local govern-. ments. Altho.ugh the specific arrangements in'existence may or may not be directly transferable to other regions, an awareness of the alternatives is a vital step in developing regional approaches. 347 AUDENDUM a. REFERENCES A. Personal Interviews Dale Bertsch Executive Director Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission John Laney City Manager Miamisburg, Ohio Robert H. Mears Mayor Miamisburg, Ohio David Foells City Manager Oakwood, Ohio Ted Gabler City Manager Vandalla, Ohio Jerry L. Hebb Manager Personnel Safety and Environmental Control Monsanto Research Corporation Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 William H. Westendorf Environmental Control Manager Monsanto Research Corporation Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 L. Bennett Coy General Manager The Miami Conservancy District 3 -East Monument Avenue 8 Dayton, Ohio 45402 348 Personal Interviews cont'd Timothy J. Doyle Project Engineer Planning and Development The Miami Conservancy'District 38 East Monument Avenue Dayton, Ohio 45402 Robert J. Schroer, Jr. Assistant Chief Engineer Water Resources The Miami Conservancy District 38 East Monument Avenue Dayton, Ohio 45402 Wesley A. Flower Chemical Engineer The Miami Conservancy District 38 East Monument Avenue Dayton, Ohio 45402 B. Publications and Reports "Air Quality Report, Jan.-Dec., 197011 Metropolitan Dayton Intrastate Air Quality Control Region "Air Quality Report, Jan.-Dec., 1971" Regional Air Pollution Control Agency "Ale Quality Report, Jan.,-Dec., 197211 Regional AiT Pollution Control Agency "Environmental Monitoring Summary, Jan.-June, 1972" I Mound Laboratory "Hydrasposal/Fibrecialm:Solid Waste Recycling Plant" Black Clawson Company "Iron Horse Park:Environmental Impact Statement" Maimi Valley Regional Planning Council, Sept., 1972 "Managing Water Quality....A Job of The Miami Conservancy District" "Montgomery County Combined General Health District Air Pollution Control Regulation", 1972 349 Publications and Reports cont'd "Mound Lab and the Environment" by Monsanto "Mound Laboratory Environmental Control Program, 1973" "Natural Resources of the Miami Valley Region," Miami Valley Regional Planning Council, June, 1967 "The Ohio Conservancy District Act Annotated", The Ohio Conservancy District Conference, W. H. Anderson & Co., 1970 "Open Space in the Miami Valley Region", Miami Valley Regional Planning Council, Jan., 1972 "Publi-c Health News:Annual Report 1971", Montgomery County Combined General Health District "Region Believes in Mutual Aid", Newsleaf Ohio EPA, Vol. 1, No. 4, Feb., 1973 "Regional Council, Local Governments and Special Districts" .L. Bennett Coy, Paper Delivered to the Seventh Annual Conference of Rcgional Councils, Feb. 26, 1973 "Regional Water Quality Management Official Plan" Miami Conservancy District, Apr. 5, 1968 "Regional Water Quality Program, 1971-7411 Miami Conservancy District, August, 1970 'Regional Water Quality Program--Second Addition to the Official Plan", Miami Conservancy District, June, 1972 "Regulations of the Ohio Air Pollution Control Board" "Resolution Authorizing Execution of Amended Incinerator Agreement with the City of Miamisburg", Montgomery County, Ohio "Status Report:Quality of the Environment," Miami Valley Regional Planning Council, Feb., 1970 "A Time For Decision", Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission "Water and Sewer Master Plan and Program", Miami Valley Regional Planning Council "Water-ResponsibilitY:1971 Annual Report", Miami Conservancy District Morgan, Arthur E., The Miami Conservancy District (NY:McGraw-Hill, Inc.), 1951 350 ADDENDUM b. ORDINANCE NO. 1835 AMENDING CHAPTER 111I.OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MIAMISBURG BY ADDING THERETO.NEW SECTIONS 1111.10 AND 1111.11 AND@DEPLARING AN.EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, it is reasonably expected that the City of Miamisburg wi'll grow substantially in population over the,next:twenty.,years, and WHEREAS, hew residents will cause a need for ne[ghborhood park service proportionate to their numbers, and., WHEREAS, the acquisition and development of.park facilities to meet those .needs should be f4nanced by the res'idents of new-areas directly benefitted thereby, and WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of'the Miamisburg Park and Advisory Board that such special benefit be recognized by establishing a fee payable on all residential units at the time of building permit.issuance,- NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE.CI*TY OF M.IAMISBURG, OHIO, TWO-THIRDS OF THE ELECTED MEMBERS THERETO CONCURRING THAT:, Section 1. There is hereby enacted Sections 1111.10 and 1111.11 which shall provide as follows: ,1111.10 PARKS AND PARK SITES a) There is hereby,44stablished'a fee to be p6id'on each building permit issued for the construction of a structure in the-City. This fee shall,be: Number of Bedrooms 0-1 2 3 4 5 Fee $47-00 $63-00 $79-00 '$1,11.00 This fee is applicable to mobile homes, and other.industrially manufactured residential units where such units do not other- wise require@a. building permit but where,i.t.is required that they have a footer, foundation or other support-ing slab or pad. And no permit shall be issued for the construction of such foundations, footers..or pads and slabs unti 1. -and;. at such time as the appropriate fee is paid. 351 Ord. No. 1835 b) All such fees shall be used for the acquisition, purchase, development ahd equipping of neighborhood parks and park sites in the City. c) All fees collected under this section shall be placed in the'Park Capital Fund. d) No building permit for the construction of a residence structure in the City-shall be issued unless and until the fee provided for in this section is paid on each such building permit issued. e) No person, firm or corporation shall receive or be entitled to receive the building permit for the construction of a residence structure in the City unless and until the fee provided for in this section is paid on each such building permit issued. f) Nothing contained in this section shall relieve or be interpreted as relieving any person, firm or corporation from complying with all other ordinances, laws, rules, .regulations of the City or of any other governmental agency where they are now in force or hereafter enacted, regulating and governing the issuance of building permits for the construction of res-idence structures and/or commercial or business structures in the City. g) Not withstanding provisions in this section to the contrary, council may, at its sole option, enter into a contract with any person, firm or corporation, who or which is subject to the payment of the fee established in subsection (a) of this section. Such contract shall provide that upon the execution and delivery by such a person, firm or corporation of a deed of general warranty conveying to the City, and its successors and assigns, a good and marketable title to the real estate described in such deed, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances thereon, such person,-firm or corporation, upon executing and delivering such deed, shall receive a credit against the fee established in subsection (a) of this section, which credit shall be in an amount equal to the value of such real estate. The value of such real estate shall be determined by negotiation between the parties or agents for the parties. h) Not withstanding provisions in this section to the contrary, council may, in the case of a Residential Planned unit Development, waive part'or all of the fee established in sub- section (a) of this section. Such waiver may be granted when, in the opinion of council, common areas, created and developed in a Residential Planned Unit Development pursuant to Ordinance 1482 as amended, provide recreation opportunity for the resi- dents of said areas sufficient to impose no measurable increment in. the need for neighborhood park acreage. 352 Ord. No. 1 835 i) When invoking the waiver provisions contained in subsections (g) and (h), council shall seek the written recommendations of the Miamisburg City Planning Commission and the Miamisburg Park and Recreation Advisory Commission in the manner provided by Section 4.12 of the Charter of the Municipality of Miamis- D bu urg j) All persons, firms and corporations, who or which are subject to pa yment of the fee established in subsection (a) of this section, must pay such fee, unless and until such persons, firms or corporations are relieved of the payment of such fee by council in the manner provided for in this section. 1111.11' OTHER OPEN SPACES a) Provision of green belts or similar buffer areas may be required by the Council in areas where they are desirable to separate or protect residential subdivisions from adjacent commercial developments, major streets or highways, railroad rights-of-way, electric transmission lines, underground gas' transmission mains, other underground pub.lic.facilities, public parks, major drainage channels, public parks or areas of special scenic or historic significance. Such provision of land shall be in accordance with Section 1111.10 (g). Section 2. This ordinance is declared to be an emergency measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public, peace, safety and welfare and for the further reason that the accumulation of funds for neighborhood park acquisition and development is required to begin at the earliest possible date, therefore, this measure shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage. Passed: May 18, 1971 Attested: Marcella E. Clark Clerk of Council Approved: Robert H. Mears, Sr. Mayor 353 ADDENDUM C. "1973" CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMBINED GENERAL HEALTH DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF MIAMISBURG TO: Mayor Council Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 ATTENTION: Mr. John Laney, Manager "By unanimous consent of the Mon'tgomery County Board of Health, as shown In the minutes of their regular meeting conducted July 5, 1972, the Board of Health agrees to conduct a public health program and render public health services for the City of Miamisburg for one year commenc- ing January 1, 1973, equivalent to the program carried on within the Montgomery County General Health District. For such services, the City of Miamisburg agrees to pay to the Montgom- ery County Board of Health the.sum of twenty-one thousand seven hundred forty seven dollars ($21,747) plus the amount of reimbursement received from the State Treasurer and generally known as State Subsidy to local public health. The Montgomery County Board of Health agrees to furnish such health services as the General Health District is receiving so far as the pres- ent budget will permit." SIGNED: President-Montgomery Co. Bd. of Health DATE: Health Commissioner Montgomery Co. The City of Miamisburg accepts the above Contractual Agreement. SIGNED: Mayor of Miamisburg City Manager of Miamisburg City 354 CITY OF MIAMISBURG ORDINANCE NO. I 1986 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGERJO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMBINED GENERAL HEALTH DISTRICT F OR PROVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES DURING THE'YEAR 1973-AND ESTABLISHING".THE COST THEREOF AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MIAMI SBURG, STATE OF OHIO, TWO-THIRDS OF THE ELECTED MEMBERS THERETO CONCURRING THAT: Section 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a contract with the Montgomery County Combined General Health District to conduct a public health program and render public health services with.in the City of.Miamisburg during the year 1973.- Section 2. Cost of said contract is hereby established as $21,747-00 plus the amount of reimbursement received.from the State Treasurer as State Subsidy to local public health. Section 3. This measure is decl ' are8,to be an emergency measure necessary for the immediate preservation,of the public, peace, health and welfare and for the 'further reason that Council des-Ires' said contract to be in effect at the '"earliest date, therefore this measure shall.take effect [email protected] fter its passage. Passed: Attested: Clerklof Council Approved: Mayor 355 ADDENDUM d. AMENDED AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the problem of the removal and --@`_Jsposal of garbage and refuse has become so acute In Montgomery County, particularly within the cities and urbanized areas, that It will, unless solved, vitally affect the public health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants thereof, and WHEREAS, the officials of the various participating political subdivisions are In accord that incineration is the most practical solution of this problem, and WHEREAS, it is to the public interest that such incineration be accomplished in the most economic manner commensurate with sound engineer- Ing practices in the construction, maintenance, and operation thereof, and WHEREAS, the fiscal advisors for the County in financing part of the cost of constructing the incinerators described herein by the Issuance of revenue bonds under Section 133.06 of the Ohio Revised Code, have recom- mended that to make such bonds marketable it will be necessary to make more definite and certain the sufficiency of disposal or incineration charges, and WHEREAS, It Is necessary to amend the agreement between Montgomery , dated County and the City of NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby mutually undertake promise, and agree as follows, to wit: DEFINITIONS As used herein, the following words and phrases shall be interpreted to mean: "County" shall mean Montgomery County, Ohio "City" shall mean City,of Miamisburg "Disposable waste" shall mean all garbage and combustible refuse, including cans, bottles, and other food con- tainers, provided, however, that leaves, Xmas@,trees, and other similar items may be excepted, upon recommendation of the Advisory Board and approved by the County. "Landfill waste" shall mean all other materials not designated as disposable Wastes. 356 "'Licensed Haulers" shall mean any hauler who has been duly licensed for the hau'ling of refuse or trash in conformity with the,regulations of the Board of Health of Montgomery County General Health District, per Sanitary Regulations of the Board,of Health of Mont- gomery County under-general authorization,of the Revised Code of the State of Ohio, 3707-01 et seq. "Approved Disposal Site" shall mean any location or area approved by the district Board-,of.Health for disposal purposes. THE COUNTY SHALL: (a) Undertake the construction, maintenance, and operation of garbage -,refuse disposal plants in accordance with the General Plans and Specifications - recommended by the-Joint Incinerator Study Commi'ttee,. dated May 6, 1965; (b) EM'ploy a consulting engineer who will be,recommended by the Joint Incinerator Study Committee and who shall be responsible for the preparation of construction on plans and specifications to be used in obtaining bids on the incinerators and their facilities; shall advise the County in the awarding of contracts and shall supervise the construction involved in such contract; (c) Issue such bonds as are necessary to cover the entire costs of the engineering and construction of the incinerators, land, and other facil*ities which bonds shall be payable out of the revenues derived from the rates and charges hereinafter provided for; (d) Take such action as is necessary: (1) to require all political,subdivisions within the county either by agreement or by regulation of the Montgomery County General Health District to provide for the dis- posal of their disposable waste and landfill waste by the use of the official County disposal plan; (2) to have all waste that is collected hauled to an approved disposal site; (3) to regulate and control, In addition to the incinerators, all landfills within the County, but outside the Municipal Corporation; (4) to prohibit any Ta,ndfill or disposal facilities within the County, but outside the Municipal Corporation, which Is not Incorporated and made a part of the official County Refuse Disposal Plan. 357 (e) To provide for an Advisory Board to be made up of six (6) members, one of whom shall be appointed by the County, one by the City of Dayton, one by the Montgomery County Mayor's and Manager's Association, one by the Dayton area Chamber of Commerce, representing industry, one by the recognized association of @ownship trustees, and one by the recognized association of private refuse haulers, provided, however, that no political subdivision shall have-more than one representative on such Board; which Board shall be charged with the duty-of making recommendations to the County insofar as the number and competency of personnel, the establishment and/or modification of rates and charges as needed to meet the cost of management, maintenance and operation, and debt service charges. Such Board to meet at least once quarterly and at such other times as at least three (3) members therebf'may request with not less than four (4) members constituting a quorum. (f) To keep in operation the incinerator plants and the incinerator landfill facilities every day of the year, Sunday only excepted, at least between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 3:30 P.M. (g) Shall equip each incinerator plant with an automatic weighing device which shall issue duplicate weighing receipts for each load, one copy of which shall be handed or delivered to the truckdriver,at the time of weighing. 2. OBLIGATIONS OFCITYI: In consideration of the above and recognizing that the City owes a duty to the residents of the City to afford them every reasonable protection to assure their health, safety, and welfare, the City shall: (a) Guarantee the County, upon completion and commencement of operation of the incinerators that it wil] deliver through its own collection system, and to the extent that collection is handled by licensed haulers, require its licensed haulers to deliver to the incinerator plants all of its disposal waste. Incinerators to be located in the vicinity of Stop Eight Road and Bertwynn Lane; (b) Pay to the County, and/or require its licensed haulers to pay under rules and regulations established or to be established by the County and the General County Health District, not to exceed $3.50 per ton for such disposal waste in the first year of operation, said rate to apply to all users. Thereafter the rate per ton shall be as established in accordance with procedure prescribed by item (B) of-the "General Provisions" contain ed herein; provided, however, that such rate shall at all times be sufficient to pay the expenses of operation and maintenance of the County incinerators, the principal and interest charges,of both the revenue and general obligation bonds issued by the county, i"ncluding debt service and other security re- serves prescribed for the revenue bonds and the replacement of any monTes paid from capitalized reserve.established in the bond and interest redemption 358 account by the resolution authorizing the issuance of said revenue bonds. Payment of tonnage charges shall be made within thirty (30) days after presentation by the County to the City or to haulers licensed by the City, or other users of an itemized invoice showing the tonnage delivered, such invoice to be submitted monthly; (c) To prohibit any landfill or disposal facilities within the City which is hot made a part of the official County Refuse Disposal Plan; (d) To regulate and control all landfi*lls within the City. GENERAL PROVISIONS A; IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the annual tonnage rate used herein1s based upon the estimated weights contained in the report and survey on refuse disposal problems @qhich has been in the report and survey on refuse disposal problemo which has been prepared by the consulting engineer, as applied to the total construction and installation costs, which also in- cludes land acquisition, engineering and consultant fees, operating costs, all debt service charges, and capitalized interest for the period between the sale of the County securities and the time that the facilities are in operation on a revenue producing basis. B. This rate is to be reviewed annually by the Advisory-Board as provided by Item I (e) hereof, and such Board shall make recommendations for adjustments depending upon the expe"rience and costs resulting under actual operating conditions, it being understood,-however, that any new rate or rates so established shall be uniform as to all political subdivisions@. C. Upon the faithful performance of all of the conditions and stipulations to be performed by the parties hereto, this Agreement shall con- tinue in full force and effect until such time as the bonded indebtedness, In original or refunded form, incurred by the County in the I nstallation and operation of the facilities Included herein has been completely paid and re- tired and may be renewed from time to time thereafter for such period or periods of time as may be mutually agreeable by the parties hereto. IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that this Agreement shall not be binding upon the parties hereto unless and until like ag.reements have been entered ' I into by and between the County and the cities of Dayton, Oakwoodj Kettering, West Carrollton, Vandalia, and Moraine, and rules,and regulations of the Mont- gomery County General Health District have been esta blished consistent with the provisions of this Amended Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have.hereunto affixed their names and official seals this 13th day of June 1967. city OF Miamisburg Montgomery County, Ohio By Paul R. Stevich, Mayor By APPROVED AS TO FORM.: By Edward C. Helke William D. Forbes By Robert E. Kline Prosecuting Attorney Board of County Commissioners 359 APPENDIX 5 PIEDMONTTRIAD REGION, NORTH CAROLINA Introduction The Piedmont,Triad Region is an elevfn county area in north central North Carolina of 5443 square miles." This region contains 20% of North Carolina's population. More than 50% of the Piedmont Triad's population is concentrated in Guilford and Forsyth counties. Between 1970 and 2000, the population of this area is projected to increase around 40%. Since it was not possible to study the entire Piedmont Triad, this field study focused on the two primarily urban counties--Forsyth and Guilford. Both Forsyth and Guilford Counties have been active in developing environmental programs. It should be pointed out that other local governments in the Piedmont Triad have effective environmental programs and their omission should not be taken as a reflectibn on their quality. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Both Forsyth and Guilford counties have active environmental groups which have*pushed for better environmental management. In Guilford County, citizens have exerted considerable political pressure for environmental action. One of the most interesting events was the release in October 1970 of a citizen report A White Paper: An Assay of Environmental Conditions in Guilford County with Recommendations to Candidates for Public Office. A group of fourteen local scientists analyzed present environmental conditions including the topics of: Population of Guilford County, Compatibility of Land Use, The Atmosphere, Water Resources, Noise Pollution, Pollution by Radioactivity, Thermal Pollution, Ecological and Human Values. The primary purpose of the report was to inform the citizenry on the environmental degradation in Guilford County and to provide specific direction for elected government officials. For Guilford County, the White Paper recommended the following: --Establish and recognize a nine-member citizens' board (an extra-governmental body, membership accepted voluntarily by qualified persons) to aid governmental departments carry out their responsibilities. *It consists of the following counties--Surry, Yadkin, Davie, Stokes, Forsyth, Davidson, Rockingham, Guilford, Randolph, Casewell and Alamanac. 360 --Implement the recommendations published in the reports entitl.ed "Open Space" and "Open Space and Recreation Implementation Plan" written by the Guilford County Planning Department including the es shment of a County Conservation and Recreation Board. --Initiate action to secure further information (to supple- ment economic data) about the effects of aircraft noise upon human and animal life; the limits.to which aircraft operations may impinge upon the well-being of private citizens; means of providing better public mass transportation. One year later, a supplement was added to the White Paper updating it and reviewing their recommendations. A.t.that time, none of the seven recommendations had been acted upon. However, the, supple- ment did commend the solid waste pulverization program. In Forsyth County, environmental groups and the local press have been very active in stimulating environmental action. An environmental Coordinating Council (ECC) has been established consisting of fifteen environmental related groups--League of Women Voters, Youth for a Cleaner Environment,'Nature Science Museum Guild, Junior Woman's Club, Winston-Salem Jaycees, Pilot Club of Winston Salem, Town and Country, Junior League of Winston-Salem, West End Association, Garden Club Council, Community Environmental Action, Reynolds Planning Council, Gordon Manor Woman's Club and American Association of University Women. The ECC has played an active role in conducting research in cooperation with the county government and the City of Winston-Salem, and in sponsoring programs in environmental education. In addition, the Winston-Salem Journal and Twin City Sentinel have played an active role in exposing environmental issues. The high quality of their article is reflected in the paper's winning a Pulitzer Prize in Journalism for meritorious public service forr a series of articles on environmental problems. One example was a brief series of articles on a massi've fish kill in the Yadkin River in which 35,000 fish were killed in one day.. The problem was due to inadequate sewer system in Winston-Salem, particularly the inability.to handle the was'te discharge from the Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company. The series included outlining and analyzing the result of corrective programs taken by Winston-Salem and theSchlitz Brewing Company. Innovative Organizational Arrangements' The organizational arrangements which have evolved in the Piedmont Region include: (1) the use of citizen advisory boards, concentrating on the Guilford County Advisory Board for Environmental Quality .and Regional Piedmont Triad Committee on Environmental Affairs; and 361 (2.) intergovernmental service agreements, focusing on Guilford County's Consolidated Water Extension Program and Solid Waste Pulverization-Disposal Program. The,action strategies for environmental management include: (1) the proposed environmental impact statement,proces s for Forsyth County; (2) the City of Greensboro wastewater surcharge;* (3) programs in environmental education in Forsyth County; (4) the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments environmental inventory; and '(5) the proposed soil erosion ordinance in Forsyth County.* Citizen Advisory Board In October, 1972, the Guilford County Board of Commissioners created by resolution the Guilford County Advisory Board for Environmental Quality (Environmental Board). The Environmental Board serves 'in the capacity of an extra-governmental organization of knowledgeable citizens, and [email protected] the following.objectives: --to provide technical information and supplemental advice to Guilford County Board --to aid governmental units to maintain and/or improve environmental conditions --to assure safe, healthful, and aesthetically pleasing surroundings for all inhabitants, present and fuiure. The County,officials felt that they lackedthe internal expertise to. handle many.,envi.ronmental problems and therefore turned to the resources andexpertise in the commun-.ity. Fortunately, within the County are two.colleges--North Carolina A & T and the University of North Carolina, Greensbo,ro--where some of the expertise could be found. In addition, the White Paper had created some strong pres@ure on GuilfordCounty to have some form of advisory body. In sel'ecting the Board members, the Commissioners solicited names of potential members from environmental and c'ivic groups as well as industry. A list of 90 individuals was developed. However, the County Board of Commissioners could not reduce the nominees for the Environmental Board to nine which wag the number of Board members provided for in the' original resolution. As a result, a second resolution was passed in December separating specialists in Water and Air Resources. In January, 1973, ten Environmental Board members were appointed by the County Board of Commissioners. The members of the-Ehvironmen'tal.Board were appointed for initial terms of 1, 2, or 3 years, with succeeding appointments for 3 years. The Environ- mental Board is composed of one each of the following specialists: *The ordinance, adopted by the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners (April 30, 1973), was put into effect on July 1, 1973. 362 --Air Resources --Water Resources --Land Resources --Vascular Plants --Societal Affairs --Biology --Aesthetic Co6cerns --Urban Technology or Public Health --Legal Affairs or Economics --Public Communications or Education The present chairman is currently district conserv ationist with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Other Board members include: two university professors; a former teacher and present Chairman of the Environme ,nt Projects Committee, American Association of University Women; Manager, Pollution Control'Division of an air conditioning firm;.housewife active in cultural affairs; a retired County Farm Agent; a practicing attorney with strong environmental interests; vice presi.dent of a rendering company; and a land developer. In addition to the ten members, a Community Liaison has been also appointed for a one year term by the Coun 'ty Commission to act as a go-between with the Environmental Board and other community groups, particu'larly ones interested in environmental affairs. This person is to function to disseminate information,encoUrage cit,izen groups to recognize and use the Environmental 3oard, and 'channel information from citizen groups to the Environmental,Board. This Environmental Board does not occupy an official position with authority to enact laws or regulations or to determine official policies or procedures binding upon the administration of governmental units. However, the Environmental Board, as an integral part of its' obligations, can initiate studies and make reports of its studies and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Within the purview of the Environmental Board as an advisory body, the following functions must necessarily be performed: --investigate environmental conditions of Guilford Count .y --periodically --Review regulatory procedures and methods of governmental units --Review appropriate records and reports of governmental units --Review the findings of private consultants employed by the County Commissioners or departments under their authority --Compile research data --Compile the' results of. practical tests, "pilot projects," and operations --Solicit additional technical aid when required --Coordinate efforts and information of governmental units other than those of the County government 363 --Encourage theestablishment of formal research projects proposed to study environmental conditions in Guilford County --Cooperate with and coordinate activities of various environmental committees and organizations.of citizens concerned with environmental quality --Cooperate with and coordinate activities of educational institut'ions, private enterprises, and private citizens --Solicit and review suggestions and recommendations and criticisms made by all individual parties and organizations --Explore the possibilities of acquiring public and/or private grants to fund special activities with objectives to improve the environmental quality of the County --Issue timely reports to the G,uilford County Board of County Commissioners --Draft ordinances for enactment by the County Commissioners --Participate In meetings with the County Commissioners, gove.rnment employees, and general public to explain findings, decisions, and recommendations as required. To assist the Environmental Board in fulfilling these functions, the County, Planning Department has provided the Board with one staff person. From January.to March, 1973, the County government held a series of orientation meetings for all Board 'members. On March 1, 1973, the Environmental Board held its first meeting and adopted by-laws. As one of their first tasks., the Board decided to divide into four subcommittees: --Large Scale Sites --Monitoring Environmental Damages --Energy Crisis --Ongoing Procedures and Operations At the present time, the subcommittees are just getting organized. A second task initiated by the Environmental Board was a survey of environmental and civic groups designed to identify areas of concern and undesirable conditions and to solicit participation:in the Board's activities. The responses were coming in at a very slow rate at the time of the field study. A third task was the adoption of a resolution requesting that Guilford County make arrangements with'the U.S. Army Corps of Engi.neers to map all areas affected by periodic flooding in order that a flood plain ordinance be prepared. During the field studies, several operational problems were evident: --confusion on roles with the Board members envisionin g technical assistance from the staff and the staff seeking expert opin on from Board members --commitment of members to the Environmental Board andlits goals as demonstrated In the lack of a quorum at several consecutive meetings 364 --gne staff member could not provide adequate support. An example of another type of citizen advisory board is the Regional Piedmont Triad Committee on Environmental Affairs (Committee on Environmental Affairs). In 1971, forty persons were appointed to the Committee on Environmental Affairs to serve as a regional advisory body on,environmental and related matters. At their first meeting, CEA divided itself into eight task forces: economics, education, government, recreation, religion, social welfare and health. Each task force was to analyze and ident,ify desirable goals and objectives in its- specified area@in relati@on to environmental matters. In November 1971, a series of workshops was held by PTCOG in which some possible area- wide goals on environmental issues were presented. The task forces went their own directions which made it nearly impossible for meaningful integration of reports. In addition, a gift of $6,000 from a committee member was received, but the donor thought the funds were never used properly. In discussion with Roger Schecter, Regional COG Environmental Planner, the following problems were cited: --individual group perspectives and not regional or general environmental perspective --strong individual personalities dominating task force activities. Because of its operating problems, the Committee on Environmental Affairs has been disbanded. INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT Guilford County has taken a very active role In developing Intergovern- mental service agreements with the cities of Greensboro and High Point. Two agreements, the Consolidated Water and Sewer Extension Program and the Solid Waste Pulverization-Disposal Program, are of interest to this study. Consolidated Water Extension Program During the early,1960's, Guilford County recognized it had the major ingredients to attract tremendous industrial and residential growth; namely, a very adequate state secondary road system, two major inter- state highways, a regional airport, and a feeder trunk of Southern Railroad. In an attempt to deal with the problem of uncontrolled growth, in 1964 Guilford County adopted a County-wide zoning ordinance, established a long-range planning division as well as provided a Building .Inspections Department (Electrical, Plumbing Mechanical and Structural). After establishing the regulatory and planning agencies, the Board of County Commissioners felt they could then supply the "missing ingredient" necessary for accelerated, but tightly controlled development-- public water and sewer service. 365 During Spring 1965, the City of Greensboro and Guilford County adopted a resolution stating in-part, "WHEREAS, it is the intent of both governmental units herein to provide existing water and sewer facilities into certain areas outside... the corporate limits of the City of Greensboro in order to adequately and efficiently provide much needed water and sewer services ... to the end that a healthy, orderly and coordinated system.of continued growth and development will be attained in a manner most consistent with the general welfare The County would finance the extensions and the City would provide the water and treat the wastewater with existing municipal facilities. TheCounty, unable to utilize property tax revenue for construction (since it could not be offered to all citizens), initially relied heavily on interest-free loans from industry and residential developers to finance the first line extensions and establish the system. The loans were to be paid back from fees and charges paid by users of the utilities. Even with these meager beginnings, the program began to snowball and within three years a system valued at $2.4 million had been installed through these interest-free loans, non-tax revenue and additional monies accumulated in the program's revolving account. From.1965 through 1967, extensions were made from the Town of James- town. These extensions of sanitary sewer service, even though modest in comparison to those from Greensboro, served areas extremely important to the community. These Jamestown extensions served the campuses of the area's technical institute, an elementary school and-a high school; and they also served-a major facility of Burlington Industries. In 1968, the program became a little more sophisticated with the advent of a revised City-County Agreement. This amended contract established a municipal-type operation utilizing an assessment program, more sophisticated accounting, and long-range planning. It also contained, within the new Agreement, the establishment of Service Perimeter Areas in which extensions could be made if approved by the County. The rate of extensions between 1968 and 1970 slowed to a certain extent, with only $1.7 million dollars worth of lines being installed. However, 1970-71 was a landmark year for the prog ram. Within a period of 12 months the County signed an extension agreement with the City of High Point', thereby doubling the land area potentially to be served by utilities; began confirming and collecting assessments levied on past construction (at least tripling the rate of revenue return from the lines); and successfully conducted a $5 million bond referendum for future extensions. Owing to the use of bond funds, the funds available in the revolving accounts, and federal and state assistance, the program today is extremely active. Fiscal year 1972-73 saw approval of line construction valued at over $2 million. During fiscal year 1973-74, over $3 million worth of construction will be initiated (about evenly divided between the Cities of High Point and Greensboro). 366 The most established revolving account, with the City of Greensboro, is presently reaLizing a rate of revenue return of about $200,000 annually. These funds are, of course, added to the available bond funds to construct additional lines. With operation of the additional lines approved In F.Y. 72-73 and 71-74, the Greensboro revolving account should eventually realize an annual revenue of over $500,000. The program's working arrangement is outlined as follows: (1) On the basis of majority petition from property owners, public health necessity, or public developmental necessity, the County may approve a project. (2) The project's scope is determined by the County's Division of Environmental Services and Division of Environmental Health in conjunction with the City Public Works Department, and is engineered to meet City construction specifications. (3) The County delivers the necessary funds to the City and the construction contract is awarded by the City. (4) The City's Public Works and Engineering Departments oversee construction. (5) Upon completion of construction the project is relinquished to the City. (6) The City's Assessment Division prepares the assessment roll which is delivered to the County's Division of Environmental Services. (7) The County confirms the assessments which are then administered by the Division of Environmental Services, (8) Connections to the water and/or sanitary sewer lines are voluntary unless ordered by the Division of Environmental Health. (9) Actual connections (meter installations, etc.) are accomplished by the City's Division of Water & Sewer Administration. (10) At time of tap-on, an acreage tap-on fee and meter fee are paid by the property owner. (11) The City's Division of Water & Sewer Administration submits quarterly users statements to the County customers. (12) Every quarter, 25% of the water And sewer rates collected in the County is placed in the City-County Revolving Account. (13) Future construction is financed from this revolving account. Identical, but separate, accounts and procedures are used for all three municipalities. The program is now in its seventh year. Guilford County has utilized it as a major asset for attracting industry and residential developers who desired to locate in the unincorporated areas to escape municipal taxes; or who desired proximity to the interstates, rail service or airport; or who desired a more "rural" setting; or a combination of these reasons. 367 The County has been very selective regarding the type of industry desired. There is only one large, "wet" type industry there, and probably no others will be allowed on the system. The great majority of industrial and commercial customers have been located along the interstates and within industrial parks (such as corporate headquarters, light machine fabricators, research divisions, warehouse terminals, motor inns). Residential developments have been of the higher-density, single-family and multi-family variety. The extension program has contributed greatly to the influx of quality development over the past seven years. As an example, property values in the airport area (which has received the bulk of extensions) were $67,500,000 in 1964; today they are $170,000,000. Through this program, all governments.are benefiting both directly and indirectly. The great majority of the County has been and will be untouched by these extensions. These areas will remain in a totally rural state. County government and the governments of the cities within its boundaries will continue to offer their citizens, corporate and private, a choice of three environs in which to live and work: totally- urban high-density within the corporate limits; lower-density "rural" with several municipal-type amenities or a totally rural, low-density setting. Guilford County has no intention to transform all of its 560 square miles into a sprawling mass of industrial parks, apartment complexes and high-density subdivisions; b 'ut the County does feel selected areas can support such development if adequate services and controls are provided. Solid Waste Pulverization-Disposal-Program. On February 9, 1972, the governments of Guilford,County, the City of Greensboro and the City of High Point signed an agreement for a joint, cooperative solid waste processing and disposal program. This authorization formally culminated a sixteen-mo 'nth effort, including the passage of a $1.2 million bond referendum,@to establish a mutually- beneficial program which would attack the solid waste problems of the three governments while, at the same time, utilize disposal methods . more aesthetically and environmentally acceptable to the local populace. Until 1970, existing policies and procedures were inadequate to meet 11rural" citizen demands and to effectively handle the increasing rate of generation of industrial and commercial waste in the unincorporated areas. Because of an existing cooperative program of extending municipal water and sanitary sewer lines into the unincorporated areas of the County, many outlying residential areas had reached urban densities. There also were substantial satellite commer&ial and industrial developments. At that time, Guilford County's sanitation program relied heavily on private enterprize to provide collection and disposal in these "rural" areas. Five private collection firms operated in unincorporated areas with common collection rates being established by the County Commissioners. However, most of these firmschose 368 the highest-density residential areas in which,to operate. In. addition, private collectors were left to their own,initiative to establish and operate their own landfills. In terms of disposal operations, Guilford County did.subsidize one private collector's landfill operation. As a result of this, subsidy,, any citizen of Guilford County may deliver and depos.it hi.s own.individual refuse.at the operation. This reliance on pr 'ivate enterpri:ze was.relatively convenient for county government,. but thesystem was not meeting,developmental demands, not providing maximum envi@onmenltal protection as required by the public and by state and federal regulations, and not providing a program offering the convenience des@ired by,rural citizens. In November of 1970, the Board of.County Commissioners requested the County Manager's:staff to better define the local problems and make a brief;survey of di-sposal techniques applicable to the local situation.. The fol,lowing rural problems were cited: (1).Pr.ivate collection firms allowed to operate anywhere within -.the unincorporated areas: concentrated their services on high .,density residential areas. Subsequently, residents in lower- density areas do not have collection available; consequently (2) Most.private collection f-irms have to operate:their own individual landfills. a)'In many cases their haul-times and -distances to their private operations are enormous (one firm had a 3-hour round trip to his fill). b) Having individual fills for each collection.firm is grossly inefficient in terms of a total County system. c) Many individual fills are substandard in,operational practices. d) The fills'(except the one subsidized operation) are not available to the public. (3) The-single County subsidized fill serves a 560 square mile area making the rural,citizen's individual efforts to deliver his-own@refusie most inconvenient. During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that the two major municipalities within Guilford were also experiencing problems'with their own sanitation programs. Greensboro had adequate landfill area, but a vigorous annexation program had caused severe problems in dead-head hauls cross-town to their landfill. On the other hand, High Point had no problems in transport,.but had a critical problem regarding'r"emaining useful landfill area left. Realizingthat perhaps a 'common solution.could be found to solve the distinctly separate problem .s..experienced by all three governments, the Vice-Chaitman of'th6 Board of.County Commissioners proposed a Tri- Governmental Solid Waste'Co'mmi.ttee--(Sbl'id Waste Committee) to be form6d@ to attack'the problems.' In December, 100, the Solid Waste Committee is first meet Iing.too rg.anize and to define goals. was created and held'i 369 The Solid Waste Committee consisted of the following individuals: Elected Section Vice-Chairman, Board of County Commissioners, Guilford County-Committee Chairman Mayor Pro-Tem (now Mayor Elect)-City of Greensboro Councilman (now Mayor Elect)-City of High Point Staff Section Director of Environmental Services-Guilford County- Committee Coordinator Director of Environmental Health-Guilford County Director of Public Works-Greensboro Director of Public Works-High Point Superintendent of Sanitation-Greensboro Superintendent of Sanitation-High Point The Staff Section immediately began to more thoroughly investigate the relationship of the individual problem areas. Sample weights of loaded municipal vehicles were take 'n, estimated volume capacities and weight calculations were made on private collection vehi.cles, local areas of private service were better defined, differences in the two municipal policies and procedures were clarified, time and distance studies were made on all collection vehicles and the characteristics of local solid wastes were determined. Therefore, for the,first time, a clear picture of the total, County-wide solid waste generation, collection and disposal situation became available. Several methods of solid waste disposal were also seriously investigated in light of the additional local information gained. Most standard methods were quickly eliminated owing to poor operational cost-effective- ness comparisons and/or the potential needs for very substantial capital outlays. Although local government experience with solid waste shredding or puliverization in the U.S. was minimal, enough data was available to determine that this type of operation deserved more scrutiny. By January 1971, a substantial amount of data on pulverization was acquired through shredder manufacturers and from the few local governments using the system. The Staff Section then presented their findings to the Elected Section at a full Committee meeting. The Solid Waste Committee decided at that time that pulverizat.ion of solid waste deserved very serious consideration. On-site tours of pulverizer operations were suggested and subsequently approved by the three governing bodies. In February, the Committee members, plus two additional County Commissioners, travelled to Mobile, Alabama and Albuquerque, New Mexico. The City of Mobile was operating a,very elaborate composting operation and in Albuquerque the Committee saw a pulverization demonstration on the premises of a shredder manufacturer. After returning from New Mexico, the Solid Waste Disposal Committee was convinced that the best t-ri- 370 governmental program should be based around several pulverization installations.@ On February 24, 1971, the Elected Section of the Committee held a news conference and released the following statement. Guilford County, Greensboro and High Point governments are combining efforts to collectively solve the area's solid waste probl&ns.',The proposals to be made by this joint-committee to the three governing bodies are: That the County assume total responsibility for all solid waste disposa.1; that the.,,solid waste be pulverized prior to disposal;.and that several transfer-pulverizing stations and at least-ofie additional landfi'll be implemented for purposes of efficiency and convenience to municipal collection vehicles, rural private collectors and rural citizens without collection services. These recommendations are to be made to the.two city councils-and.the Board.of Commissioners by this Solid Waste Disposal Committee which is composed,of elected representa- tives and staff members from the three governments. This,committee has. been,investigating new.solid waste disposal practices and equipment since late last year.- The conimittee's'aim was to design a total system which would -M be abl.e to effectively and efficiently handle today's solid waste volume requirements.as wel.l. as the needs for tomorrow (2) provide ultimate disposal without polluting the air,.land, or water (3)rid landfills of the nui'sances that ar@e usually associated.wilth'such operations such as odor, rodents', i,nsects,,smoke, blown paper, dust,mud and unsi-ghtly@excavation (4) be compatible with all existing collection and.disposal equipment (5) prolong the life of each disposal s:ite so that:the additional.land acquisitions will be i,nfrequent '(6) increase the*economy of public and private collection practices by-decreasing the haul-distances of collectionvehicles (7) make individual delivery of solid waste by rural citizens more convenient (8) and reduce the time needed before a-completed landfill site, can be-recIaimed for public or private use. It is felt by thiS,rCommittee that all of the goals will be met through [email protected] the three major. recommendations. The C6unty-will also make.immediate application to the federal.government for financial assistance under a grant program offered by.the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. If.the app1ication is approved, the grant could cover up to 75% of the expected one million dollar plus price t:ag'for the total system. 371 The Solid Waste Committee had determined at that time that County government was to assume responsibility.for the disposal of municipal waste as well as that collected in the unincorporated areas. Because three separate pulverization stations and landfills would comprise the system, it was evident that maximum coordination as well as close fiscal control would be necessary. It had also been decided that, once pulverized, the waste should then be deposited in either established, conventional fill areas and/or in new fill tocations. The Resource Recovery Act of 1970 had been made public law in October and from the grant requirement outline it seemed as though an attempt should be made for federal assistance. In March, 1971, the Committee Chai 'rman as well as representatives from the Staff Section visited the Madison, Wisconsin pulverizer station and then continued to Edmonton, Alberta, Canada to see their site. This trip was much more technically-oriented with discussions with local officials and operators directed at operational details, maintenance, reliability and financing. The next two months were spent in pulverization research and logistic details. A consultant from North Carolina State University was retained to prepare a computer transhipment model to reroute collection vehicles in conjunction with combinations of alternate pulverization station sites, possible transfer station sites and possible landfill sites (new and existing). During.this time a preproposal application for the new federal program was being drafted by the County. As a backup measure, the solid waste,pulverization program cost was also added to five other issues on an upcoming County bond referendum in June. The research done by the Staff Section had concluded that the program would cost about $1.2 million dollars. To finance the pulverization program, $1.2 million was provided in a $30 million bond package which was presented to the voters. With the support of garden clubs and environmental organizations, the pulverization bonds passed by 4 to I majority. The capital financing plan was to ask the citizens of the County for the total amount needed for the program. Then, if federal funding was offered, only a portion of the bonds would be sold to provide local matching funds. However, word came from the EPA regional office that the Act's funding had been reduced and that, administratively, they were not prepared to proceed with implementation of the new program. Immediately after the bond referendum, the Staff Section began holding committee sessions at least once a week. At several meetings, manufacturer's representatives attended and made presentations concerning their equipment and services. During the-frequent meetings in July, August and September, staff was formulating a detailed policy and procedures Manual which included the role and responsibility of'each individual of each government. The Manual included the estimated capital outlay per installation, estimated cost of operation, and proposed amortization schedule for each piece of equipment and structural component. Methods of disposal of special wastes not suitable for pulverization were i.nvestigated 372 and included as-addendums to the Manual. A limited amount of resource recovery is also discussed in an addendum. The Manual's rough draft was submitted to the Elected Section in November of 1971. It became evident that a serious disagreement existed between the County and one of the municipalities.as to the source of operating revenue. The municipality proposed the operating expenses of all three stations be funded through County tax revenue. To facili.- tate this estimated annual need of $250,000, a County-wide tax Increase would be necessary. The County was unwilling to authorize this increase for several reasons including the disproportionate ratio between industrial generation of solid waste versus its real property value and the fact that many rural citizens were without collection service and therefore would be paying for a disposal operation whether they could utilize it or not. The problem was finally resolved in December of 1971 by deciding to weigh each collection vehicle as it delivered waste and bil,I its-owner (be it public or private) at the end of the month on the basis of actual cost per disposed ton times the actual tonnage delivered. A nominal fee will also be charged - to each private auto delivering domestic solid waste. Debt service on the bonds will be met by the County from revenue derived from a local County sales tax. The Manual draft was tentatively approved by the,three governing bodies and a brief, formal agreement was drafted. The formal agreement refers to the Manual as an outline of officially adopted policies and procedures. Along with the Manual's preparation during December and January equipment, specifications were also being drafted in anticipation of formal agreement approval. About three weeks after formal agreement adoption, on February 29, 1972, specifications were submitted to six bidders. Bids were opened on April 21, with the award of contract by County Commissioners coming no later than May 15. The specifications called for the shredder, material handling equipment and the engineering services of the shredder manufacturer. Once the initial contract was awarded, Staff Section worked with the manufacturer's engineering department to design and compose specifications for the,total installation, including foundations, structures, roads, scale stateion, rolling stock, etc., for a second round of bidding with general contractors. The specifications were drafted so that design and construction of the three installations would be phased. As one station becomes tested and operational, any obvious design imp,rovements made evident by that station will be incorporated in plans for the subsequent installation. I-n October, 1972, the groundbreaking was held for the High Point-Guilford County Solid Waste Disposal Facility with actual operations beginning in Spring of 1973. The Solid Waste Committee envisions a future consolidation of all installations under one agency (as originally proposed) as soon as 373 County-wide collection is available. Such a collection program is presently in the formulative stages (probably a rural container system). When this single agency (probably'the County) assumes responsibility for the operation of all three installations, an annual disposal surcharge or fee will probably be levied to each home, bu's'ines Is and industry (based on actual annual tonnage generated), 'J.n lieu of the monthly billing, to fund the year-to-year operations. The vehicles will then be weighed only,for record-keeping purposes. The Committee.has illustrated that three associated, yet distinctly. individual governments can rely on the talents, authority and resources of each other to formulate and implement constructive programs to deal with major area-wide problems. The success of this committee' has spurred much interest in forming other, similar committees to confront other, shared problems in Guilford County. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT In North Carolina, the state government adopted the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971. Within this act there is a provision for environmental i,mpact statements (EIS),requiring state agencies to prepare impact statements for legislative and other actions Involving public exp'end.itures which significantly affect the state's envirohment. These impact statements detail the following points: --environmental impact of the proposed acti.on --any significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be impl@emented --mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact --alternatives to the proposed action "the relationship between the short-.term uses of the environment involved in the proposed action and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and -.-any irreversible and irretrievable environmental change *s which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Review and advisory procedures are required to assure that the.EIS is as accurate as possible and that all interested agencies and units of government have an opportunity for review or examination. When a state agency finds that a major adverse change in the environment will occur as a result of the proposal, it is directed,to,submit the pro- posal and 'statement to the Governor for special review and final.. decision by him or by his designated agency.. In an amendment proposed for the 1973 legislature the required EIS must be attached to the "earliest identifiable plan, report, or other documentation of a. project." A project is further defined as that which involves "constructioR, building, modificatio 'n'of a 'landscape, or site, or any similar action involving major changes in the environment' (Senate Bill 126). The amendment provides also that comments shall 374 be sought from."citizens, individuals, or representatives of organized groups@ with professed interests related to the environmental impact involved." The responsibility'of the state agencies is further defined: "Sta ,te programs involv .ing regulation or'control through permits or licenses or standards for State, local, or private projects which, in the aggregate, have a significant environmental impact', shall present"In their annual work program a program plan which delineates the rules and regulations of the program and a detailed guideline on how these rules and regulations shall be administered, including how officials shall make decisions'under the program which take into consideration the,envirohmental impact of those decisions, including' (the content of requiredtIS statements).. Such plans ... shoUid be reviewed,and updated annuatly." It is not known to what extent state agencies have established rules of procedure for the actions required under the Act of I '971. ll,lustrative, perhaps, is the promulgation of an order for public hearing on April 1, 1973 by the Utilities Commission of it -s proposed requirements of an EIS and other datiin the siting of electric generating facilities. Foe local'government, the Act authorizes, but does'not require, these governments to require any special district, public authority, or private developer to submit an impact statement on major development project. So far, only one small beach community h .a's adopted an environmental impact assessment process. However, Forsyth County had just completed in March,.1973, a comprehensive study for local environmental impact statements entitled The Feasibility of an Ordinance Requiring Environmental Impact State- ments. The report was prepared by the manager's administrative staff 71-ththe assistance of the County Planning Department, Environmental Planning Staff. In responding to the Board of Commissioners request, the report focused on the following questions: --Have' EIS requirements elsewhere been effective? --What have been the major accomplishments and problems.of EIS requirements? --Is.an EIS needed in addition to current or proposed environ- mental programs? --if warranted, who and What should be subject to it and how can it be enforced? The report'analyzes experiences with EIS in California, particularly San Diego County, Vermont,-and Florida. For those case studies, the Report presents pros and cons of local EIS (see Addendum a). In speculating about the adoption of a local EIS ordinance,- t.he Report pointed out that all public and'private projects. (exceeding two acres) Would be reviewed by local government as to the total effect on the environment. This wou-Id 'include those elements of the environment, 375 not now covered by.local l.aws or ordinances such-as noise, social aspects, of historical or archaeological, significance, as we] 'I as other standards listed above. It was felt that the recommended ordinance would provide Forsyth County with the opportunity of adopting requirements stricter than the prevailing state or national standards. The statement would b 'e an umbrella document listing.all permits ' requirements, and approvals needed for a project. This assumes that the Act of 1971 provides sufficient authority for Forsyth County to make issuance of a building permit or other entitlement contingent upon a satisfactory environmental impact statement. Otherwise, the entire process wou.ld be an academic exercise, because there would be no authority to require.changes in a project should the EIS review show detrimental effects on the environment. In conclusion, the Report stated that most arguments against the EIS can be nullified if the governing board will direct its staff to provide an EIS procedure which: (1) Is simple enough for any developer to complete with minimal engineering help, yet comprehensive enough to be effective. (2) Is easily evaluated by present staff in a short length of time so as not to unreasonably delay proper development. (3) Is based on legal standards which will hold up readily in a court of law. (4) Will apply to all projects, both public and private, (5) Provides insurance against abuse. (6) Provides for on-site monitoring by environmental agency which acts as reviewing agency for projects during actual construction. If environmental protection measures used are not effective, enforcement procedures should be available to stop progress on the project unt'il it can be shown to meet acceptable, clearly defined standards. The report warned, however, that no matter how perfect the procedure, the governing board must realize that it and they will face stiff opposition from some quarters. Everywhere EIS procedures have been enforced, the governing board has come under fire at one time or another from developers-and in- terested citizens. Ecologists will accuse the board of "selling out" if the regulations are too lax (in their estimation), and developers will protest against what they will consider unreasonable hardships.@! The Report recommended that the Board of Commissioners recognize its responsibilities to conserve and protect natural resources; to maintain a human environment which will be safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically pleasing; to provide the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation or risk to,health and safety; and to preserve and protect important hi storical, archaeological, and cultural elements of our common inheritance. To carry out this responsi- bility the report proposed an ordinance creating an EIS process. The proposed ordinance requires that prior to the issuance of a building or zoning permit for a project that significantly affects the quality of the environment, an Environmental Impact.Statement shall be filed 376 with the appropriate agency 'or County government (see Addendum b). This impact statement is to include the following: a) The environmental impact of the proposed acti.on; b) Any significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be,avoided should the proposal be implemented; c) Mitigation measures propo Ised to minimize the impact; d) Alternatives to the proposed action; e) The relationship between the short-term uses of the environment involved in the proposed action.and-the matntenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; f) Any irreversible and irretrievable environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. The EIS report is to include consideration of the following variables: (1) Air Quality (2) Noise (3) Solid Waste Disposal (4) Toxic Substances (5) Water Supply (6) Wastewater Disposal (7) Energy Use (8) Health (9) Public Safety (10) -Erosion, Sedimentation (11) Historic Bui 'Iding or Area, Archaeological Site Destruction (12) Aesthetic Considerations (13)-Wildlife Habitation (14) Recreation and Open Space (15) Land Use Change, (16) Population Density (17) Transportation, Streets, and Highways (18) Education (19) Economic Development (20) Employment (21) Housing The suggested process for implementing local EIS procedures can be found in Table The proposed ordinance further declares to be a policy of the Board of Commissioners that there will be established a section of County govern- ment to be called the Environmental Clearinghouse. The Environmental Clearinghouse wi 11 have the responsibility for determining whether a project significantly affects the.quality of the human environment, and reviewing all eniironmental impact statements submitted., The Clearinghouse will be located within.the proposed Environmental Affairs Department which would develop and enforce the EIS procedure. The depart- ment would be built around the already proven core of personnel in the County Air Quality Control Department, with additional personnel drawn from Planning, Health, and Inspections. 377 .Table 1. PROCESSING TABLE FOR FORSYTH COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS Public Projects Private'Projpcts 1. The "responsible" official of 1. Developer consults'infor'ma'lly the initiating agency consults with Coun.ty Clearinghouse;.. informally with Clearinghouse receives guidelines, necessary officials. forms. 2. If "significant effect" is de- 2. Developer submits required data termined, EIS is prepared by the to Clearinghouse. If "signifi- initiating agency and transmit- cant effect" is determined, ted to the County Clea,ringhouse developer submits EIS to same. agency.* (If not of significant (if not of significant effect, effect, a Negative Declaration a Negative Declaration Is is issued, public notice given., issued, public notice given, and opportunity to challenge if and opportunity to challenge afforded the public. If chal- is afforded the public. If len,ge is successful an EIS must challenge is successful, an EIS be prepared). must be prepared). Clearinghouse disseminates EIS to: Same as for public projects. A. Agencies with jurisdiction or expertise, as: Air Quality Control, County/State Conser- vation Service, CCPB staff, County Engineering Adminis- trator, N.C. Office of Water and Air Resources, Dept. of Archives and History; others B. Public through news media and file copy for examination. 4. Clearinghouse receives comments 4. Same as' for public projects. 5. Clearinghouse summarizes comments 5. Clearinghouse summarizes comments and returns one copy with recom- and returns one copy with recom- mendation to the Initiating agency; - mendation.to developer; retains retains file copy for public. file copy for public. 6. Responsible official makes deter- 6. Developer may: mination to: A. If recommendation is denied, A. Approve project. modify plan and submit new EIS to be processed through B. Revise plan and submit revised steps 3,4,5. EIS to be processed through steps 3,4,5,6. B. Request public hearing on original plan. C. Withdraw project. *To be designated by Board of Commissioners 378 Table 1. continued. Public Proje6ts Private Projects 7. Board of County Commissione rs 7. Reviewing body advertises and takes required official-action holds public hearing on the, if project is forwarded. original or new EIS. 8. Reviewing body finds that require- ments of law have been-met; or may refer project back..for further revision. (Legality of latter step to be determined).- 9. Necessary permits and issued on finding that requirements of law have been met. (if developer seeks permit in absence of finding and is denied, he can seek writ of mandamus). 379 WASTEWATER SURCHARGE Within the Greensboro..boundaries are a.numbe,r of major industries--textile, cigarette, meat packing, dairy, food processing, chemical, and meta.1plating. The wastewater discharge, particularly from@textile p..Iants is extremely hi?h. The City operates two wastewater Plants under the Water anJ Sewer Departmen During 1970, the City surveyed over one hundred industries,on such items as water consumption, number of work days, number of employees, type of industry, nature of produ'ct produced, and the nature of wastewater discharge. From. this survey, it wasdetermined that a-number of industries ha,.8 no more than weak domestic wastewater. However, the discharge of a few in@dusiries was very expensive to t.reat,which cost the.city additional funds.' IAs a.result, the City initiated a wastewater-.surcharge programbased on the following rationale: .--due to the vast number of rivers and streams surrounding Greensboro, it is imperative for the City Is waste to be treated to a very high degree-- 95% to.99% 'efficiency. --the cost of wastewater tr.eatment of polluting substances should be distri,buted to those discharging industries --the City must have full cooperation of industry with respect to d.ischarged materials. In January 1961, the.Ci,ty,pdopted an ordinance.th.at established limitations on waste which they would accept, including: --storm water and drainage --any.liquid or.vapor having a temperatu,re of 150*F --any,.soli-ds such as ashes,.sand,, mud, etc. --any gasoline,.flammable or explosive liquids --any improperly -shredded garbage --any waste.having a stabilized ph of less,than 5.5 or more than 10.0 --any cyanides --any noxious or malodorous gases --more than I mg/l of copper, zinc or chromium --more than 100 mg/l of fat, oil or grease exclusive of soap. Although the ordinance did not place@restrictions or limitations on the quality of BOD or suspended solids nor establish a surcharge, it did provide',for property access and for monitoring devices to be installed at the iddustries' expense. In an amendment passed in October 1961, a surcharge was established on those industries and commercial-establishments whi.ch contribute excess BOO and suspended solids in their wastewater discharge. No maximum limit on concentration was' set forth.. However, at.the request of the industries, the effective date.of - the surcharge was six months later'i.n order to give industry. an opportunity-to cl.ean up. their discharge.. The.surcharge rate was established at $22/1,000 lb. of BOD and $24/1,060 lb. suspended solids. In discussing the method.of establishing the surcharge, Ray Shaw stated that: 380 The rate of.surcharge was established by utilizing the 1961 budget for treatment plant operational costs including an amortiziation-figure of 3.5 percent for a life of 25-years. This amounts to slightly over.six percent per year. The . : 'I,961 plant loading data were used to calculate the unit cost. It was assumed that a typical domestic waste would have a BOD and suspended solids concentration of 200mg/I and that if a waste exceeded this strength by 50 percent, then it was indeed'a strong waste. It was further assumed that the sewerValume charge 'Which at that time was 65 percent of the water bill, paid for the treatment of the waste up to the 300 mg/l limit which was established.* Since 1961, the surcharge rate has been raised to $23 per 1,000 1.6s. of BOD and-$30 per 1,000 lbs. of suspended solids. Immediately after the amendment's passage, the city sent out a letter to all potentially@affected industries volunteering city personnel labora- tories free of charge to aid industry in problems of in-plant control. Three responses occurred: --clean up and install necessary equipment --partial clean up by eliminating most costly pollution --no action. As a good example of the second alternative,,a slaughter house installed two new mechanisms--a blood collection tank and a mesh vibrator screen. for solid separation. The blood,was pumped to a rendering plant for use, as a raw material while the solid material was hauled away In a dumpstee. These waste control mechanisms,reduced the BOD level from 1575 mg/) to 500 mg1I and suspended'solids from 550 mg/I to 225 mg/l. However, the third alternative most often occurred since it was cheaper to pay the city. A sampling schedule was set up based on monthly rate: --less than $100 of surcharge, twice a year --$100 to $500, four times a year --ovir $500, six times a year'. Any industry may request a second sampi Ing if it feels that, the first sample did not represent its average discharge to cover city expenses, the City charges $50 per day. To sample on a 24-hour basis, the City purchased sampling mechanisms and a trailer for ready move- ment., One sampler proved to be Inadequate so the City constructed *Shaw, Ray E., Jr."Experience with Waste Ordinance and Surcharge at Greensboro, N.C.,"Journal Water Pollution'Control Federation (January 1970), pp. 45. 381 a second in oider,that two industries could be sampled simultaneously. Howevir,,the' City found that the sampling processes were hampered by; --no power available at location --inaccessible location of weir box trailer from plant personnel ._-bettei@ sample collection methods. A,minimum-of'three days is devoted to sampling each plant' with an authentic aver i determine rate. Due to sampling problems .age used to. with restaurants and laundromats, a special fixed unit charge is made. To determine that charge, an average discharge was made on three laundries with the standard set at 525 mg/l for BOD and 250 mg11 for suspended solids. For restaurants, a sample of five were chosen, but lacked any consistency. As a result, re�taurants'charge is $.0345/unit. The"cos'ts'of operating .the program amounted to $18,067 in fiscal 1969, which Was primarily spent on the industrial waste supervisor's salary and a.laborer assistant. However, 25% is spent on plant operational duties. During,the first years $618,000 was collected, which represents 32% of the operational costs excluding amortization of equipment. The advantages to this program o f wastewater surcharges appear to be: --the program is self-sustaining financially --industry is kept aware of the problem of wastewater treatment --current information can be distributed. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION In April 1973, theEnvironmental Coordinating Council of Forsyth County and Reynolds House sponsored a two evening seminar entitled: Ecology Seminar on Environmental Awareness. An Ecology Seminar Committee, under the chairmanship of Peter,Weigl, Assistant Professor of Biology at Wake Forest University, identified the following objectives in designing the seminar: --identification and open discussion of local environmental,,problems --recognition of accomplishments by various segments of the community -presentation of different approaches which may lead to solutions tIo some of the local environmental problems. The fi.r st eveni.ng focused on Problems of Land Use, including discussion of topics,such as Coexistence with Nature, Grading and Flood Plain .. Problems,, and Urbanization and Transport. The second evening dealt with Approach6s"to Environment, including .presentations on Law, Business, Development and Industry Parks, and Citizen Participation. Participants in the seminar were experts from the community. 382 Another educational activity in Forsyth County is the acquisition of 1/2 hour of Sunday prime time television on the local NBC affillate. Since September 1972, Forsyth County Government had produced A series of programs designed to educate the public about county government sand its activities. During the field study visit the county was in final preparation of the following Sunday's show which focused on the soil erosion problem in Forsyth County and a proposed ordinance for remedying the situation. This particular show had been developed by an interested citizen in cooperation with the County manager's office. The citizen. had taken a series of slides demonstrating the destruction of a reservior due to soil erosion from construction sites. The slides were coupled with an informative dialogue about soil erosion. ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY The Piedmont Trial COG, in,cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, Is in the process (of developing an Environmental Reconnaissance Inventory for the Triad region. The objectives of the Inventory are: --to identify and locate environmentally sensitive areas --to identify possible actions which could restore or enhance environmental quality --to provide information to the public and governmental units. The inventory includes such items as: --places of historic interest --free flowing white water areas --wildlife habitats --locations for unique species of plant and wildlife --caves --areas of critical environmental concern (e.g., swamps, polluted rivers, ect.) At the time of the field study, a preliminary draft was open for public revire and the addition of useful, information was solicited. SOIL EROSION CONTROL Within Forsyth County, soil erosion from new construction sites during heavy rain common in the southeastern part of the United States has been a very critical environmential problem. During the last two-years, many streams and creeks have been eliminated as the result of silt. The rationale behind the recently passed ordinance is to stop soil erosion by controlling the quality of new developments. The technology is simple; and the county only needs to get the developers to act by educating them on how to construct drainage processes. The enacted ordinance was written by the Homeowners Association, in cooperation with Forsyth County officials, over a two year period. The ordinance's purposes are to prevent: 383 --any harmful increase of the rate sand, silt or other suspended solids are carried off property by drainage water flow --any change in the flow rate which will cause increased flooding or erosion --any hazards to the public health --continued erosion,of soil unprotected. Under this ordinance, the County requires development permits before grading and that the permit be properly displayed on the property. If no permit is obtained,or the permit is invalid, the developer is subject to a $50 per day misdemeanor. One criticism of the proposed ordinance is.that enforcement is tied too closely to building permits and, as a result,.development of land couldroccur. before selling. SUMMARY In this field study, an attempt has been made to highlight some environmental management programs from the Piedmont Triad Region of North Carolina. These programs are critical since the region is in the process of large scale growth and devel,opment. However, the environmentai problems are not as critical as in the highly industrialized areas of the United States. In terms of the organizational approaches, emphasis has been placed on regional approaches and regional cooperation as demonstrated by the pulverization and water erosion programs. Because of the abundance of water resources, one of the f irst environ- mental actions was the establishment of a wastewater surcharge. At the present time, many additional environmental actions are under consideration,including the environmental impact statement process and reo.rganization of environmental functions and services. 384 @ADDENDUM.a. EXCERPTS FROM FORSYTH COUNTY (N.C.) STUDY OF "THE FEASIBILITY OF AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS" CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT: For (1) The exils,tiin',g -f ramework of laws and regu'lations'dealing with de've'loOmen t,r are too fragme.nted to deal effectively with total environmental considerations. A unified Environmental Impact Statement procedure would provide a "one stop" method of communicating government requirements to developers., (2) The adoption of an Environmental Impact Statement procedure would fore@stall'impulsive,requests for rezoining,.variances, and spe@i-zil use permits. (3) The EIS would help@ prevent over-devel.opment'wh'ich would exceed.the Iota] government's se.rVice capacity, being a .part of the' community's@environment Ial resources. A a.*nst EIS i's another governmental intrus,ion into the private sector. (2) Zero gr owth enthusi-asts may use the Environmental Impact to oppose all development. (3) EIS could lead to a moritorium on growth similar to actions -taken in seve'ral Western and-Northeastern communitie .s. This could ruin economic development for the entire region. (4) The public will not benefit from the curtailment of development and alienation of industry by EIS requirements. COST, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE For (1) Land is a resource which, if made unfit for human habitation, cannot be replaced at any cost. (2) Inexpensive but destructive development will e.ventually cost more in the long run than careful (EIS 'approved), thoroughly planned development using the most ecologically sound methods. A California builder was recently quoted as saying," Some of the things we are fighting now are caused by developers who took advantage of poor regulations for a quick turn of the dollar. This has left a mar on the land, and people don't want to see it happen again." (3) Often the income from an increased tax base derived through unbridled residential, commercial, and industrial development, will be completely negated by the increased demand for costly public service- in poorly planned areas. 385 (4) Cost for preparation of EIS amount to less than 1% of building cost. (A small price to pay for the protection afforded). (5) The costs of EIS generally range with the size and cost of the total project so that small builders are not dis- criminated against. Against TI) Developers will protest costly construction delays while decisi,ons are pending on the Environmental Impact State- ments (2),More rigid criteria and the cost of EIS preparation will increase engineering, consultant, and materials costs which will increase the cost to the consumer. (3) Administrative costs in government will increase due to the need for an EIS evaluation and possibly on EIS preparation staff. The developers' costs will be passed to the consumer through tax increases. (4) only attorneys will profit in the long run from the long and tedious court battles which will ensue from the enforce- ment of the EIS ordinance and procedures. (5) It will be necessary to either increase the review and hearing workload of the commissioners, planning board, or create a new board or commission to handle EIS. (6) Political costs.paid by the commissioners enacting such a policy may be significant in terms of developer, industrial and commercial support. (7) The complexity of EIS attacks one of the mainstays of the building industry, the small local builder/entrepreneur, in a discriminatory fashion. EFFECTIVENESS IN MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS For (1) The requirement will give the Commissioners the opportunity to establish a policy of protecting the natural and human environment and to move toward achieving this objective by legislation and the establishment of administra- tive procedures. (2) It provides the means for local government to examine the full effect of urban development on the total environment and coordinate the growth of the community. (3) If offers the opportunity to codify and upgrade standards in areas of environmental effect, both those now controlled and those uncontrolled at present. A ainst 1) Local legislation will discriminate against large developers with fairly good plans and allow devel-opers of two or less acres to go without control no matter how poor their plan. 386 (2) Even an acceptable EIS is no assurance that there is no harm to,the environment in actual practice. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION For U) It offers a way to provide local citizens with the oppor- tunity to review and, comment on proposed development. A st 1) There will be an increase in the public hearing load'for the'Commissio,ners or other existing appointed board. (2) Litigation against the county can result. 387 ADDENDUM b. ORDINANCE REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly has authorized the govern- ing bodies of all cities, counties, and towns, acting individually or collectively, to require any special-purpose unit of government or private developer of a major development project to su 'bmit detailed statements reflecting the environmental impact of such projects: NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Commissioners of Forsyth County hereby ordains pursuant to G.S. 113 A.8 that any special-purpose unit of government or private developer of any major development project, where such project significantly affects the quality of the environ- ment, submit at the earliest identifiable stage of the project a detailed statement setting forth: (a) The environmental impact.of the proposed action; (b) Any significant adverse environmental effects which , cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (c) Mit.igation measures proposed to minimize the impact; Ad) Alternatives to the proposed action known to the person submitting the statement, including: (1) Alternative uses of the land in question, and (2) Alternative ways to achieve the purposes of the proposed project: (e) The relationship between the short-term uses of the environment involved in the proposed action, and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and (f) Any irreversible and Irretrievable environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action, should it be implemented. AND WHEREAS, at least ten (10) copies of the environmental impact statement shall be filed with (the County Clearinghouse Agency) for review by said agency and transmittal to local, state, and federal agencies having jurisdiction or expertise. One (1) copy shall be placed in a file at the office of (the Clearinghouse Agency) and shall be made available for inspection by the public. AND WHEREAS, guidelines relating to the preparation of environmental 'impact statements under this ordinance shall be prepared and made available by the (Clearinghouse Agency) in accordance with the intent and purpose of this ordinance and shall apply in the preparation of environmental impact statements required by this ordinance. 388 Specifically, and without limitation of other existing or future guide- lines, the guidelines set forth in Schedule A of this ordinance shall apply to environmental impact statements required by this ordinance. (The material set forth in Schedule A is included for the convenience and information of persons submitt1ng environmental impact.statements). DEFINITIONS The.term "majordevelopment project" includes, but is not limited to, shopping,centers, subdivisions and other housing developments, industrial and commercial projects, projects involving dredging or filling, and any project which involves removal of any ground cover, natural or man-made, of any buildings or other structures, or any water course or body of water, either natural or man-made, provided that@this definition shall not include an@,projects of less than two contiguous acres in extent. A "project signific antly affecting the quality of the environment" is a major development project that may have a detrimental impact on air or water quality or on ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; that involves large scale alteration of existing environmental components, including possible contamination of a public or domestic water supply system or source, effects on ground water, flood hazards, erosion or sedimentation potential; that will affect historic or archaeological sites; that will significantly increase traffic hazards and congestion; or will affect the healthful and convenient distribution of the population and its housing and the wise and efficient expenditure of public funds in the adequate provision of public utilities and other public require- ments. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT Within sixty (60) days subsequent to the filing of the environmental impact statement and after review and comment by the designated Clearinghouse Agency, the Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing on the proposed project. Notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the area no less than two weeks prior to the date of the hearing. The Superintendent of Inspections shall not issue any building permit or certificates of occupancy or compliance for any structure within a major development project except upon finding that the requirements of this ordinance have been*met. Nor shall-any@approval, permit, license, certificate or filing provided for by.any zoning ordinance, subdivision control ordinance, or other land use control ordinance be granted or allowed for projects subject to the control of this ordinance by the Board of Commissioners, the Superintendent of Inspections or any other county official or body except upon a finding that the requirements of this ordinance have been met. 389 EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of its adoption by the Board'of Commissioners of Forsyth County, North Carolina, etc. 390 SELECTED WATER AccessionNo. RESOURCES ABSTRACTS INPUT TRANSACTION FORM 4. Title Environmental Management and Local Government '4't thor(s) 7. Au Kili 71 Steve Carter, Murray Frost, Claire Rubin, Lyle Sumek 10. Project No. 9. Organization International City Management Association 11. Contractl Grant No. 1140 Connecticut Avenue 801374 Washington, D. C. 20036 50 t 15. SupplementaryNotes Environmental Protection Agency report number EPA-600/5-73-016, February 1974. M. Abstract This report presents the results of a study of environmental management and local government. The study has two main components: (1) a survey of chief executives in cities over 10,000 population & counties over 50,000; and,-(2) a series of field studies of local environmental management in Dallas, Texas; Inglewood, California; Miamisburg, Ohio; & the P16dmont Triad Region (Forsyth and Guilford Counties), North Carolina. The major topics covered in the sti*dy include: perception of the definition of environ- ment, priority of environment. as,aJocal policy issue, and types of environmental problem facing each local government; adoption of local policy statement on the en- vironment; existence of citizen environmental boards, environmental agencies, environ- mental sections in master plans, land use controls, other environmental controls, mor- atoria, environmental quality standards, environmental impact asses*sment procedures, environmental law suits, tax incentives and.penalty charges; factors contributing to and factors creating obstacles to development of environmental programs; and, relations with state and federal agencies. 17a. Descriptors survey, case study, environmental management f7b. Identifiers 17c. COWRR Field& Group 18. A vailability Send To: TER RESOU WA RCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240 Z Abstractor Steve Carter Institution International Ciq Management Association *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1974 546-317/327 1-3 RD 674 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Forms and Publications Center Route 8, Box 116, Hwy. 70, West POSTAGE AND F998 PAID Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 UNVIRONMENTAL PltQTKClrlON AGUNCT LLS.MAIL EPA-335 Official Business Special Fourth-Class Rate Book CD (0 (0 0 F If your address is Incorrect, please change on the above label; tear off; and return to the above address. If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report series, CMECK HERE (3 tear off label, and return it to the above address. 'f your tC2r 0 f you do C JI c M@