[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
0 Coastal Zone Information Center PB-209 642 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER 2/ The Relationship Between Land use and Environmental Protection Argonne National Institute March 1972 Distributed By: National Technical Information Service HD U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 205 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va. 22151 .R44 1972 0 GRAPHIC DATA Report No. 2. 3. PB209 642 APTD-1105 The Relationship Between Land-Use and Environmental March 27-31, 1972 Protection 6. Authors 8. Performing Organization Rpt. No. -E.J. Croke, K.G. Croke, A.S. Kennedy, and L.J. Hoover 9 Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No Argonne National Laboratory Center for Environmental S tudies 11. Contract/Grant No. 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439 12 Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Covered 15. Supplementary Notes A Briefing Document for the Joint Meeting of the President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board and Air Quality Advisory Board 16. Abstracts The case is outlined for integrating land-use planning and regulation with environmental. protection. This document indicates some of the legal, institutional, organizational, and technical aspects of this approach to the preservation of environmental quality.,. There.is a growing recognition of the need to subject public and private decisions re- garding, land use to a much closer scrutiny with regard to their environmental implica- tions. A great deal of legislative and organizational activity has taken place in the past few years regarding this issue. An array of evaluative techniques nowused either for land-use Planning or for environmental planning may be of potential use in formula- ting environmental land use policies. If land use guidance and environmental protection objectives-are to be integrated, programs for merging the procedures and practices of groups involved in these functions must be developed. The feasibility of employing land use as a means of environmental protection, as well as it s eventual effectiveness, will depend Very heavily on how effectively appropriate liaisons can be established between responsible agencies at the Federal, State and Local levels. 17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17 Descriptors Air pollution National government Land use State government Planning Local government Regulations Urban areas Legislation Regions Reproduced bY 17b Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE US Department of Commerce Springfield, VA. 22151 17c. COSATI Field/Group 13B 18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This 21. No. of Pages Report) Unlimited 20. Security Class (This 22. Price Page UNCLASSIFIED) FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) USC COMM-DC 40.324-7 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United.States nor the United States Atomic Energy Commission, nor any of their employ.,ees, nor any of their contractors,, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or imp.lied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use.would not infringe privately- owned rights. 3 FOREWORD On M arch 27, 1972 ajoint meeting of the President's Air Quality Advisory Board and Water Pollution Control Advisory Board will convene to evaluate the issues and prob- lems associated with the employment of land use controls as a mechanism for environmental protection. The meeting will focus on some of the issues raised by the impact of land use -decisions on environmental quality. These include: the effect of ,past land use decisions on present environmental quality; the impact of present land use decisions on the future attain- ment and maintenance of environmental quality standards; the availability of planning tools in assessing the environ- mental impact of present land use decisions; the need for enabling legislation to support land-use- oriented environ- mental protection programs; methods by which local, state, and federal land-use- oriented environmental protection pro- grams could be initiated; and ways by which the public can manifest its preferences with regard to environmental pro- te.ction programs which involve the monitoring and channel- ing of urban and regional growth. In order to obtain information regarding the complex relationship between land use and environmental quality, witnesses from a broad spectrum of backgrounds have been invited to testify at this meeting. Their testimony will aid the President's Air Quality Advisory Board and Water Pol- lution Control Advisory Board in the pr.eparation of re.com- mendations regarding the applicability of land use controls to environmental protection. This report was prepared as a briefing document to assist the board members in their preparation for this meet- It presents background information relating to the land use issue, and includes examples of the impact of past land use development practices; examples of development deci- sions that will affect the quality of our environment in the future; historical perspectives of environmental protection activity and land use development practices; and isolated examples of the merging of environmental concerns with the .1 ugh the report is not a and use development process. Altho definitive treatment of this complex issue, it is hoped that it Will stimulate the witnesses and the board members to ad- dress the many and difficult questions associated with the a@pplicationof land use planning and controls to the environ- mental protection process. Preceding palre lank ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION by E. J. Croke, K. G. Croke, A. S. Kennedy, and L. J. Hoover Center for Environmental Studies A Briefing Document for the Joint Meeting of the President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board and Air Quality Advisory Board Property of-CSC Library March 27-31, 1972 06. F OEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOFON AVENUE, ,"HARLESTON :. SC @q405-2413. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5. ALTERNATIVE -INSTITUTIONALARRANGEMENTS TO'COM- BINE LAND-USE PLANNING WITH-ENVIRCNMENTAL CONTROL ......... .................. 37 5..,l New Institutions Which Combine Environmental Protection and Land-Use Management ....................... 37 5.2 Separate Environmental,and De velopment Agencies - -an Alternative to Functional 1-ntegration ................ 40 6. THE NEED FOR ANALYTICAL TOOLS TO EVALUATE THE RELATIONSHIP BET WEE N LAND- USE AND ENVIRONMEN- i TAL QUALITY ................................. 41 6.1 P*zesent Analytical Tools for Evaluating the Relationship between Land-Use and Environmental Quality ... ...... 41 6. ?_ Future Trends in Environ. -mental Land-Use Research ..... 43 7. LAND_-USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY- THE FEDERALROLE. ....................... 47 7.1 The Role of the Federal Government in Land Development, 'Regulation and Utilization ....................... 41 7.2 'The Framework for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Federal Programs ....... ........... 48 7.3 Federal Authority to Establish Environmental Land-Use Controls .................................... 50 8. TRENDS IN NATIONAL POLICY WITH REGARD TO GROWTH, LAND'- USE AND THE ENVIRONMENT ......... 1.1..; ....... 55 0 ... 55 8.1 T ward an 1fr'ba'n': Growth Pbli@cy_... I............. 8.2 Land-Use Policy ...................... ....... 56 8.3 Alternative Institutional and Organizational Systems for Ehvironmental Land-Use Planning and Management ...... .. 57 9. IN SUMMARY .............. .................... 61 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............ ...... ...... 62 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD ....................... .............. 3 ABSTRACT ....................................... 1. INTRODUCTION .................................. 2. THE IMPACT OF.LAND DEVELOPMENT ON ENVIRONMEN- TAL QUALITY ................................. 15 2. 1 The Pervasive Nature of Environmental Impacts Caused by Past Land-Use Decisions ....................... 15 2.2 The Irreversibility of Environmental Problems Caused by Land-Use Practices ........................... 17 2.3 The Capability of Pollution Control Technology to Lessen the Environmental Impact of Land-Use Decisions ....... 18 2.4 Land Development and Unknown Environmental Impacts ... 18 3. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF LAND-USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES ....................... 21 3.1 Land Guidance Institutions ....................... 21 3.2 Land Guidance Tools and Techniques ................ 23 3.3 The Effectiveness of the Land-Guidance System ........ 25 3.4 Introducing Environmental Objectives into the Land- Guidance System .............................. 26 3.5 The Responsiveness of Planners and Planning Agencies to Environmental Objectives ..................... 27 4. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ]ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL PROGRAMS ................................... 29 4.1 Environmental Protection Legislation ............ I .... 29 4. 2. Environmental -Protection Institutions ............... 31 4.3 Environmental Protection Planning Procedures ......... 34 4.4 The Responsiveness of Environmental Protection Planners to! Urban and Regional Planning Issues ....... ......... 36 Preceding page blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5. ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS TO COM- BINE LAND-USE PLANNING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL ...................................... 37 5.1 New Institutions Which Combine Environmental Protection and Land-Use Management ....................... 37..- 5.2 Separate Environmental and Development Agencies--an Alternative to Functional Integration ................. 40 THE NEED FOR ANALYTICAL TOOLS TO EVALUATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND-USE AND ENVIRONMEN- TAL QUALITY ................................. 41 6.1 Pre,sent Analytical Tools for Evaluating the Relationship between Land-Use and Environmental Quality .......... 41 6.2 Future Trends in Environmental Land-Use Research ..... 43 7. LAND-USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY- THE FEDERAL RO,LE ............................. 47 7.1 The Role of the Federal Government in Land Development, Regulation and Utilization ........................ 47 7.2 The Framework for Assessing Environmental. Impact's of Federal Programs .............. I............... . 48 7.3- Federal Authority to Establish Environmental Land-Use Controls ..... I.................... I.......... 50 8. TRENDS IN NATIONAL POLICY WITH REGARD TO GROWTH, LAND USE AND THE ENVIRONMENT .................. 55 8.1 Toward an Urban Growth Policy .................... 55 8.2 Land-Use Policy ......................... .56 8.3 Alternative Institutional and Organizational Systems for' Environmental Land-Use Planning and Management ...... 57 9. IN SUMMARY .................................. 61 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................... 62 FIGURE No. Title P a g, e I A Regional Activity Model .................. ...... . 44 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1. Some Specific Federal Laws Relating to Environmental Protection ............................ . . . . . . . .49 11. COMMENT MATRIX--Federal Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law or Special Expertise to Comment on Various Types of Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 9 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION by E. J. Croke, K. G. Croke, A. S. Kennedy, and L. J. Hoover ABSTRACT Present environmental protection programs have, for the most part, been aimed at the application of the best available control technology -to existing sources of pollution. It is anticipated that these programs will, for the most part, result in the attainment of the environmental quality stand- ards established for the more significant pollutants - However, in certain highly developed and urbanized areas, the concentration of pollution pro- ducing sources is such that the application of the best control technology may not suffice to achieve environmental quality standards. In other areas, economic developmentand population growthmay result in the. obsolescence of pollution control programs that are initially effective. The geograpiii.cal concentration of pollution producing sources and economic developments are a direct result of past and present land use decisions . The impact of these decisions on the environment is difficult to assess, but the initial indications -make it appear that these decisions have had a significant effect on environmental quality. This effect, moreover, may be difficult to reverse through the use of available control technology if it is not supplemented by some type of control of the future location of pollution producing activities. If some form of land use guidance or control is employed to channel economic development in such a way as to assure the maintenance of envi- ronmental quality standards, the methods, procedures and activities of land use planning and regulatory agencies would have to be integrated with those of envi ron niental protect, ion agencies inorder toadminister such programs. Traditionally, these two types of agencies have employed distinct technique Is and have-promoted separate progra-n-is at th-e local, state, and federal lev-els. Recent recognition of the relationship between land use and environ- n-iental quality has indicated the need to assess the feasibility of developing a national policy with respect to the application of land use planning and control to environmental protection. If sucha policy is formulated, it could be imple'niented either through the creation of new institutions or through the e-stablishment of now responsibiliti-es and relationships among existing agencies, and departments of government. Prece.ding page blank, 1. INTRODUCTION In the past five years, the term "environmental protection" has been transformed from a concept existing in the minds of a select group of specialists and concerned citizens groups to a-national issue of the highest priority. In response.to this development, it became necessary to review the processes by which goods are produced, consumed, and ultimately dis- posed of in the United.States, with respect to the environmental consequences of these activities. In order to accomplish this, the federal government initiated a com- prehensive series of programs. Numerous studies were conducted to iden- tify the environmental damages resulting from industrial, commercial, residential, agricultural, and transportation activities which constitute the prime sources of pollution. Federal, state, and local legislative programs giving broad powers to regulatory and enforcement agencies were enacted, and enforcement actions have taken place at every level of government. One. of the more significant steps forward, occurred when the Federal- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established within the executive branch of the government. Simply stated, the mandate of the EPA is -to de- fine environmental quality standards and to provide leadership and assist- ance to state, and local governments in-establishing programs designed to achieve and enforce these standards. In particular, The Clean Air Act as amended in 1970 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provide the EPA with the authority and responsibility to restore and maintain the quality of our air and water. resources. Under this mandate, environmental quality standards have.been established, an d the guidelines and framework within which state and local. governments must plan and implement programs designed to achieve these standards have been developed. As part of this program,. the EPA has en- gaged in and promoted surveillance, enforcement and monitoring activities; provided financial and technical assistance to state and local governments; and supported research,.planning and technological assessment programs at the federal level.. This effort has, until now, ern e abatement and control of phasized th. pollutant discharges through the application of appropriate control, technology to individual sources of pollution. This emphasis occurred because of the acute need for prompt and effective control of existing'p Iotlution sources and the current availability, at the state and local levels,.of institutions (Tea.i,ed to the administration of traditional, technology- oriented regulatory activities.. The initial focus on source control technology represented an es- sential first major stage of the national environmental protection program. Preceding page blan'k 12 Although the installation of air pollution emission control devices, completion, of fuel and process conversion programs, construction and up- grading.of waste water treatment.facilities, etc., which occur as a result of this program, will have a significant effect on the control of environ- mental pollution; in many instances such controls may not be sufficient to .achieve and maintain environmental quality standards. Even in many areas where currently available pollution control technology can temporarily achieve environmental quality standards, rapid development may render present control regulations and programs ineffective within a few years. A prime case in point is Illinois' modern Hanover sewage treatment pla 'nt, which two years ago was regarded as one of the most advanced in the nation. Explosive development of the sur rounding area served by the plant has sat- urated its 'capacity, caused it to becorne an environmental,nuisance and forced a moratorium on further sewer connections. Sin'ce technology- oriented pollution control programs, however effective,, cannot fully ensure that environmental quality standards will be achieved and maintained, it is necessary to explore and evaluate the need. for the national environmental protection program to enter.a second stage in which environmental protection is viewed within the broader perspective of urban and regional development. For the most part, the.more sophisti- cated pollution control plans developed to date are dominated by traditional, technology- oriented regulatory practices and do not take account of the eco- nornic. and population development trends which have led to environmental degradation. The pressures of economic growth and d evel.opment, prolifera- tion of,transportation systems, increasing population densities and rapid expansion in housing developm. ents may pose both actual and potential threats to the maintenance' of environmental standards. The real or. potential environmental dangers of past and present land use decisions raise many difficult policy questions regarding the future -of 1.1ic environmental protection program. These include: 1. Is an orderly process of monitoring and controlling the changes in land tiso. and development needed to reflect the natural assimilative ca- pacity of the land'? 2. - If such a-process is needed, how can environmental protection prugrams d.eterrnine the fact that certain areas are not capable, from an. environmental point of view, of tolerating certain types of development? How can such programs monitor efficient economic growth in environme.ntally suitable areas within the constraints imposed by the capa- bility of poillution control technology to allow for such growth? The remainder of this paper presents background information re.- garding the scope and. character of the impact of land use on environmental quality. The historical developriients of land use guidance controls and environmental prote ction controls are presented separatelf and recent attempts at,integrating these forms of control are documented., Finally, the federal role is considered with regard to its present and potential capa- bility of Io stering land.use planning and environmental control., 2. THE IMPACT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The 'full impact of past and present land use decisions on environ- mental quality is sti 11 not fully understood or documented. From a pre- liminary examination of individual instances when past land use or developmental decisions have generated a significant degree of environ- mental degradation, four conclusions may be drawn: 1) The environmental impact of land use development is. pervasive in that almost all forms of economic activities- -residential,.industrial, transportation, recreation, etc.--have contributed to some instances of environmental degradation. 2) The environmental impact of present economic developmental decision's will be of a prolonged nature and may be irreversible. 3) The environmental problems posed-by past land use or develop- mental processes are not always susceptible to solutions involving the application'of a control technology. 4) The environmental consequences of land development decisions are not fully perceived when these decisions are made. 2.1 The Pervasive Nature of Environmental Impacts Caused by Past Land-Use Decisions The extent of environmental impacts caused by past developmental decisions can be graphically illustrated by documenting several examples drawn from the area of transportation planning, industrial and residential development, and recreational and agricultural activities. In the area of transportation planning and development, many in- stances of:severe environmental consequences caused by the introduction of new transportation systems can be cited. For example, as of Janu- ary 15, 1972, it appears that many major urban areas will be unable to attain current air quality standards for the vehicular pollutants unless current emission control technology is supplemented by transportation system controls. The urban areas which may require such environmental land-use control are not limited to any specific geographical area of the United States. They include Los Angeles, New York City, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle, Boston, Salt Lake City, Denver, San Francisco, Dayton, Phoenix, Fairbanks, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Baltimore, San Diego, the San Joaquin Valley, Las Vegas, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso. Increased air transportation has caused a trend toward industrial location and housing developments near major airports. Problems of air pollution, water pollution, noise nuisance, and potential accident'hazard to Preceding page blank 16 the resident population have resulted, even though the airport was initially located in -an isolated area. The construction of the Palmdale, Everglades, and Jamaica Bay airports has been delayed in consequence of the need to assess the potential environmental hazards associated with these facilities. Urban expressways generate noise which has proved to be a serious handicap to school activities. Among the growing number of suits filed against state highway departments are included an award of $165,000to the Elizabeth, New Jersey, Board of Education for damages arising due to noise from Interstate 278. Rapid or excessively intensive residential development is also causing environmental problems in various regions of the United States. In Fairfax County, Virginia and Du Page County, Illinois moratoria were placed on sewage connections because the capacity of local was.te water treatment facilities has been saturated as a result of rapid development. In effect, these action's constitute a'moratorium. on land. development. 1ri.- tense geographical. concentrations of industrial activities have long been recognized as placing a stress on the air quality of surrounding regions. - Steel mills in Illinois and Indiana along Lake Michigan now account for 40% of the maximum SO? concentrations and 75% of the particulate concentrations in that area. The wide dispersion of residential communities and suburban indus- try can, on the other hand, compromise the development,of efficient and economical waste water treatment systems. Appropriate clustering of such activities can enhance the effectiveness and reduce the cost of pollution con- trol. In Cleveland, Ohio, joint treatment, recycling and reclamation systems for the waste produced by metal plating firms became feasible because these activities were spatially clustered. Failure to take account of the fact that some intensively developed areas are particularly susceptible to environmental pollution as a result of meteorological conditions, topographical features, soil structure etc. often leads to environmental degradation. For example, the densely populated Willamette. valley of Oregon now has a chronic air pollution problem that has been compared to that of Los A Ingeles. In the absence of restrictions on development, the population of the valley is expected to increase by more than 80% between now and 1985. This population growth will further aggravat e the problem by generating significant increases in automotive travel.. Lastly, the pursuit of recreational activities has also had adverse ef fects on our national forest and scenic areas. Burgeoning second-home and resort development has caused considerable alarm in states such as 17 Vermont, Maine, Colorado, and Hawaii. These states are moving to protect their natural areas by developing strict land-us.e regulatory programs to be administered by state agencies. 2.2 The Irreversibility of Environmental Problems Caused by Land-Use. Practices We may distinguish two cases of irreversibility- -physical irrevers- ibility and socioeconomic irreversibility. Physical irreversibility implie's that even if we ceased to pollute or degrade the environment, natural regen- eration would not restore the resource to an acceptable or desirable quality. Such is no ,i the case with air contaminants that would be Washed out, for the most part, in a short period of time if all emissions were to stop. Water resource regeneration, however, generally will take much longer; indeed, certain lakes may become essentially irreversibly polluted. Reforestation, strip mine reclamation, and shoreline dunes regeneration are other examples where regeneration by natural processes may take many years to accomplish. .In the absence of a land management program, the use of unsuitable land disposal methods for liquid and solid wastes may result in nearly ir'- reversible contamination of groundwater supplies and surface receiving waters. The discharge of 20,000 gallons per week of toxic industrial waste on a land disposal facility in Logan Township, New Jersey, may generate irreversible damage to both the local groundwater resource and nearby Raccoon Creek--a tributary of the Delaware. Orange County, Florida, is" another example, where intensive urbanization, the discharged waste from citrus processing plants, and indiscriminate use.of pesticides and fertilizers has resulted in the pollution of the groundwater supply. A second form of environmental irreversibility has to do with the workings of our socioeconomic system. Our large urban complexes have evolved over several decades and some have been in existence for centuries. Buildings, transportation systems, and public services are designed for long economic lifetimes. becisions to encourage and even subsidize private autoniotivc transport systems have evolved a certain urban form and life- style. Although strict controls on autornotive emissioils have been pro- rmilgated and will 1i ave a significant effoct on the amount of these pollutants, the continul"d rise in voliicular miles In large urban areas, such as Los An- geles, may aga,in threaten the air quality of that city regardless of the con- trol technology employed. The investment in new town development and urban renewal through- out the nation has been quite substantial in the past few years. The conse- quences of these large scale public and private investment programs are also likely-to be difficult to reverse. Decisions being made now with regard to the location, type and quantity of such housing developments may have an e effect upon'the localized environment Within the area of these proj fo long periods to come. 0 3. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF LAND-USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES The process by which the public effects changes in land-use patterns can be thought of as a matrix of interacting institutions and techniques. This process is a complex and frequently confusing one consisting of the formula- tion by planning institutions of land guidance policies whose adoption and execution ultimately depend upon the diverse political, social and economic constraints affecting land use. Thus, although planning institutions and tech- niques cannot be considered as independently functioning systems of land use guidance, these institutions and techniques do represent a potential source Of policy guidance in assessing the environmental impact of land- use decisions. 3.1 Land Guidance Institutions The public institutions most concerned with guiding land use are pri- arily planning agencies. The term "planning agency" refers to any of seVeral organizational forms with various scopes of responsibilites at dif- ferent levels of government. These are public and quasi-public agencies operating at the local (city or county), metropolitan, regional, and state levels and having "comprehensive" planning responsibilities. The traditional concern of local (city and county) planning agencies has been with land use as exemplified by their research and plans., and the [and-use controls they frequently, admininister. Land use remains their prin- cipal concern, although many have broadened their activities to include social and environmental issues. In the past, most agencies took the form of a Planning staff reporting to a lay commission or board which, in turn, reports to the chief executive. An increasing number of planning directors report directly, to the Chief exective. Planning agencies at the local qovernment level essentially consist of city,county, and combined city_county agencies. Such agencies research, Prepare and, to varing degrees, implement plans for a variety of local con- ccrns such as the use of land. transportation. publiC services. communitv facilities, and so forth. They also conduct research and studies in such areas as housing open space and recreation. urban renewal, and educational and health policy regarding many phases of community development Local planning agencies have traditionally been concerned largely with land use, and have assisted in administering such controls as zoning and subdivision regulation. State enabling legislation in all fifty states has delegated the powers of land- use regulation to local city and or county governments. Planning, at the metropolitan and regional level has undergone. dra- matic change in the last few years with the enormous increase in the number Preceding Page blank of councils of governments (COGs) governed by local elected officials, many of which replaced existing metropolitan or regional lay planning commis- sions. A recent listing of some 585 metropolitan and regional agencies includes 328 COGs and I I I economic development districts, with most of the remainder being regional planning agencies. The rapid increase in the number of COGs (from 19 in 1966 to 328 in 1971) and the regional planning agencies in general is directly attributable to their favored treatment by the federal government. Starting with the initial funding authorization in the 1965 Housing Act, federal matching funds have been available to regional councils for an increasing number of pro- grams, including planning for housing, criminal justice, and water and sewer systems. Much of their strength derives from the Department of Housing and Urban Development requirement that there be a "certified" regional planning activity in every metropolitan area in order to qualify communities for re- ceipt of bonus grants for water supply and sewage system construction and for open space purchase. The 1966 Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act added additional strength by empowering such agencies to review applications for federal grants from public and private bodies. Among docun-ients requiring their review are environmental impact state- ments prepared in conjunction with any federal or federally- assisted project or program. As of April 1971, the federal Office of Management and Budget had designated 403 metropolitan and regional bodies, commonly called 'Iclearinghouses," to conduct such reviews. The eventual result of this pro- gram will be to set up the machinery for an orderly review of the environ- mental impact of federal grant projects on a regional level. From their initial concern with public works in the 19301s, state planning agencies have also grown in numbers and have changed their ac- tivities substantially. There are now planning agencies in all 50 states, many of which perform statewide 0hysical, social, economic, and environ- mental planning. Much of the impetus again comes from the federal govern- ment in the form of planning funds (since 1961 ), and federal program review responsibilities. A few state planning agencies continue to focus on eco- nornic develt_-)pment, or the administration of local planning assistance funds. The focus of state planning has largely been on staff assistance to governors and Legislatures. Twenty-seven states have planning agencies which are concerned with state government generally and are not restricted to industrial development and other I imited -purpose functions. The location Of the state'planning agencies within the state governmental hierarchy as shown in the following table is an indication of their general emphasis. Location of State Planning Agencies, 1969 Location Governor's Office 20 Department of Administration or Finance 7 Department of Community Affairs 3 Department of Commerce, Development or Planning and Development Agencies 13 Independent Planning Agency 5 Other Agencies 2 Total State Planning Agencies 50 Source: The Book of the States, 1970-1971 (Lexington, Ky., The Council of State Governments, 1971 ), p. 441. When located at the governor's office, state planning agencies are used as staff support to the governor in making government-wide policy decisions. There exists a general trend toward bringing state planning agencies into the central decision-making arena and out of the special purpose functions of the past. However, some states have yet to regard planning as having an important role in central policy-making. Some state planning agencies serve as rnere "data-banks" or carry out other specific support functions, such as federal grantsmanship or providing planning assistance to local governi"nents. State planning is often not supported by statc legislatures, i-riany of which are not convinced of the need for planning at the state level. Planning agencies at all levels may be considered key advisors to those who make land-use guidance decisions: local, state and federal gov- ernments. Except in some rare instances discussed below, planners do not niake final decisions themselves. Even on the regional level, a policy- n-iaking body of elected officials or lay citizens determines official agency policy, not the professional planners. Many other public bodies influence or guide land use. These include state and local highway and PUb1iC works departinents as well as environ- mental control agk!nCieS (e.g., California's pollution control districts) and S130ciai districts for transportation (e.g., Bay Area Rapid Transit District; New Y()rk's Metropolitan Transit Authority) and utilities (e.g., The Metro- p0litan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.). These agencies, 'unlike the planning agencies, have not been given direct responsibility over land use, Vet their de-,,-isions have a significant and lasting influence over the pattern and charaCtCl of [and use. Frequently, their decisions are at odds with the objectives of the planning agencies. 0 24 3.2 Land Guidance Tools and Techniques The system of land-use guidance techniques used by planning agencies may be divided into five categories: advice, controls, inducements, develop- ment,* and acquisition. Advice is the oldest and most frequently-used device. Planning agencies give advice to governmental departments and officials, to other governments, to private organizations, and to individuals. They may do this in response to requests for assistance, because of a state or federal review requirement, or at their own initiative. The most common form of planning advice is the comprehensive plan itself, which sets forth policies and guidelines for future development, usually based on a set of objectives and fUtUre projections. Such plans seldom carry any legal authority except to conin-iit a legislative body to a general course of action and, when used effectively, to establish the framework for the laws and ordinances which control private development decisions. Many planning agencies also pre- pare capital improvement programs which set forth the community's in- tended capital expenses over the next 5 to 7 years. Controls, especially land-use controls, have been the major tools used by local governments to implement their plans. Such controls include zoning, which separates land-use activities into districts and establishes density, height, bulk, and related provisions; subdivision regulations, which set standards for land conversion and new development; and the less- commonly used official map, which delineates and reserves sites for future parks, schools, streets, and other public uses. Related to these are housing and building codes which set standards for new building construction and dwelling maintenance. Although zoning has traditionally been oriented to the separation of different land use activities, it may take other forms, such as: the setting of performance standards under which zoning districts are established, based upon the allowable external nuisance impact of an opera- tion, the regulation of the location of special sources of pollution such as power plants, or the establishment of special buffer zones to protect areas from environmental contamination. Inducements or incentives have been used to attract particular land uses and devlopment which contribute to certain objectives. Land-use programs, for example, have begun to offer incentives through (a) planned unit development provisions which encourage improved subdivision design and greater retention of open spaces, and (b) density bonuses for buildings which provide SUCh amentitiess as open plazas, direct access to public transportation and enclosed walkways. Such other devices as low-interest loans. tax exemptions, aids in land assembly, and direct subsidy payments have been used to attract activities deemed especially desirable. *John Reps, "ReLniem for Zoning Planning (ASP0 1964), pp. 56-67. Public land development or public works had a great effect on shaping and directing urban growth through construction of transportation systems, public institutions (e.g., state colleges and hospitals), and utilities. In tht-, past, public works have usually been constructed in response to developmon, or market pressures; recent years have brought an increasing awareness of the impact of public investment decision on establishing an infrastructurt for private decisions. The role of a new highway or a sewer svstem in in- fluencing development direction has clearly been recognized, although not fully utilized. Finally, acquisition involves the direct purchase of lands for the purpose of conserving their present recreational characteristics. The pur- chase of land for forest preserves, parks or green belts would fall under this category. 3.3 The Effectiveness of the Land-Guidance System Overall, the land-guidance "system" does not operate verV sVs- teniatically. The failings of the syster-n--or nonsystem--have been well documented. The more fundamental problems with the system include the following: 1) A far more extensive history of applying controls than using preventive or incentive devices; 2) The balkanization of guidance techniques among numerous local governments (balkanization presents a special problem since environ- mental issues almost always are regional in scale); 3) The lack of effective techniques to resolve competition among jurisdictions for high tax ratables --usual 1), industry- -which underlies all other land-use decisions; 4) The fact that most decisions retriain private, reflecting the feeling that land is a private con-iniodity rather than a community resource; c5 )The %veaknoss of enforcerrit2tit powcr and its susceptibility to political and econoi-nic pressures; 6) The lack ol relatiun betwcen-and occasional conflict amung- the various techniques, and their sponsoring governments; 7) The frequent lack of relation of the systern to a generally- accepted plan. The lack of a single institution with total responsibility for guiding or directing land use, and the occasional lack of cohesiveness among the techniques, does not mean that the systern itself is ineffectual or a failure; it simply means that it is not "comprehensive." It is not surprising that the sVstem is not systematic or complete given our attitudes concerning 0 26 land as a private commodity and our desire to interfere in land-use decision making as little as possible in meeting public interest objectives. The es- sential point, however, is not that the system is less than perfect, but that the system can and does achieve limited purpose objectives. For example, techniques and institutions are available to assure the provision of adequate .street's in subdivisions, to separate so-called "incompatible" uses, to guar- antee that new homes are not built in the right-of-way of a proposed road extension, and so on. By the same token, there are many land-use objectives .for which there exist no adequate institutions or techniques. 3.4 Introducing Environmental Objectives into the Land-Guidance System When asking whether environmental objectives can become an inte- gral part of the present Land- guidance system, the answer, as usual, depends on the particular objective. If, for example, the objective is to guarantee that all future development in a metropolitan area is located so as to achieve air quality standards, then the answer would have to. be no. Metropolitan and regional planning agencies simply don't have the expertise or resources to make this kind of guarantee, and there is no way of assuring that each of the individual jurisdictions which make up the metropolitan area would voluntarily submit to the fulfillment of this metropolitan- wide objective. If different environmental objectives advanced, then the system could respond by inter nalizing those objectives with little or no difficuly. And, in fact, discussion need not be hypothetical, since environmental ob- jectives are already incorporated into many of the techniques now in use, including: I Performance standards have been designed to classify industries by their environmental impact, i.e., to separate the heavy polluters from cleaner industry and other residential and commercial activities. 2 )In recent years, flood-plain zoning has been used both to protect life and property from the ravages of floods and to maintain the carrying capacity of streams in periods of high water flow to minimize downstream damage. The Federal Flood Insurance Program has provided an incentive for the use of this type of zoning. Most subdivision regulations which permit septic tank sewage disposal require percolation tests to determine the ability of the soil to handle on-site disposal in fact, many subdivision regulations prohibit on- site disposal entirely. 4) Hillside development or grading regUlations have been used to preserve the integrity of slopes and reduce erosion and sedimentation. 5) The purchasing of easements or development rights has been, used to preserve open ---,pace and other scenic areas. 27 6) Agricultural zoning and preferential assessment of farm land have helped to preserve prime agricultural land; although these techniques have not proven to be as effective in practice Ias might have been expected. 7) Special preservation districts in zoning ordinances have been designated as conservation zones to protect historically or architecturally significant areas. Thus, while the existing, sy stern has some significant weaknesses, th6're does exist a broad array of techniques and institutions with the experi- ence and potential capacity to aid in dealing with environmental questions. 3.5 The Responsiveness of Planners and Planning Agencies to Environmental Objectives lt is difficult to determine the response of planners to incorporating environmental analysis into their programs. Planners' concern for environ- mental issues may be illustrated by the control mechanisms mentioned earlier. There is also a traditional concern by a core of professional plan- ners that planning needs to be more ec6logically/environmentally oriented. Cursory investigations have suggested a general willingness by planners to consider environmental issues--if sufficient data and analytical tools were available.. Generally, one could say that planners' concern for the environ- ment has increased at least as rapidly as that of the general population, especially among those who have realized that the lack of an environmental lj'er.spe,ctive left a seriousIgap in the knowledge needed to make informed .decisions. However, pressure to solve.socioeconomic problems other than environmental problems and their expanding, though limited, budgets sug- gests that specific guidelines, technical assistance, sources of funds, and possibly legal requirements may be helpful in assuring adequate considera@ tion of environmental quality in. planning decisions. Given some basic capacity and likely receptivity by planners to en- vironmental concerns, there are a variety of formal and informal, Iona- ZZ, range and short-range ways to get planning agenc,ies to use environmental information and tochniques in their programs, and to include environmental quality as a key objective; such as. 1. Increase public concern and hence put direct pres,sure on plan- ning agencies. incroa se public pressure for environmentaL planning in such a way that policy making bodies, state and Local governments, require that a 1-1101,C intensive environmental planning effort be made by planning agencies. 3. Have the professional planning societies such as ASPO and AIP encourage their members to broaden their environmental perspective and offer thern advice and information. 28 4.. Expand the curricula of planning schools and.offer a continuing education program in environmental planning. 5., Amend state planning enabling legislation to require that en- vironmental studies be undertaken by all planning agencies, and to assure that environmental quality becomes a key objective of planning. ,6. Make environmental con:side rations a requirement of grants- in-aid, especially by the federal government upon whom so many planning agencies' depend. For example, requiring them to review environmental impact statements'has forced this concern'upon metropolitan and regional clearinghouses. 29 4. HIST.ORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL PROGRAMS The preceding chapter presented a brief historical perspective of urban and regional planning in terms of the feasibility of integrating envi- rIonmental protection considerations into the present land use planning process. This chapter. is concerned with the other side of the question, in that it provides a historical perspective of environmental control programs, addresses the question of whether land use guidance and control can be integrated into the traditional environmental protect ion process. The evolution of the present environmental control program can be described by the history of enabling legislation which authorized these pro- 9@rams, the creation of institutions to execute the provisions of this legisld- tion and the process by which these institutions created environmental control procedures. Since the problems encountered in establishing air quality, water quality and solid waste disposal programs differ significantly, the legislative history, institutional response and planning procedures have also varied. The nature ofthe@e legislative, institutional and planning pro- grams will, to a large degree, determine the ease with which environmental protection agencies can incorporate land use planning and control objectives into their present programs. 4.1 Environmental Protection Legislation The development of environmental protection and enhancement measures in the United States has been determined to a considerable ex- tent by federal legislation. This has encompassed the whole range of en- vironmental insults from air pollutants to solid waste, but has, for -the most part been formulated as an array of single-purpose legislative instruments, each directed toward some specific pollution problem. Water Quality Legislation The modern legislative approach to the problems of environment begin with the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. With the amendment. of this Act in 1956, an enforcement procedure, consisting of a conference licaring/court action process, was provided for water pollution abatement. Financial aid in the form of grants and loans were also-provided under the Act. The federal Water Pollution. Control Act of 1961 strengthened federal enforcement procedures. The Water Quality Act-of 1965 required the states to establish and submit water quality standards for all interstate waters and.a. plan for the rapid achievement.of the standards. These standards became the basis for most actions under the federal Water Pollution Control Act, inc'luding plan- ning activities, the awarding of construction grants and enforcement practices. 30 The 1966 clean Water Restoration Act provided for, expanded re - search in advanced waste treatment and provided a grant system to support the establishment and maintenance of river basin planning based on water quality standards. The Act also vastly increased authorized expenditures for municipal waste treatment works construction. In late 1970, the President announced a new program to control water pollution through the permit authority of the Refuse Act of 1899, The Refuse Act outlaws discharges and deposits into navigable waters without a permit from the Secretary of the Army. The program makes a permit man- datory for all industrial discharges into navigable waters of theUnited States@ Violators'of standards- -including standards imposed by the EPA when federal-state or state standards do not apply or are clearly deficient--are ineligible for permits and liable to@ enforcement proceedings. The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 further provides that any federally regu- lated activity must have state certification that it will not violate water quality standards. Air Quality Legislation Fede.ral legislation related to air pollution began in July 1955 when Congress authorized a federal program of research on air pollution and' technical assistance to state and local governments. The clean Air Act of 1963, and the Motor Vehicle Act of 1965, augmented by the Air Quality Act of 1967 and culminating in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, repre.- sents the most significant federal legis.lation regarding air quality. The 1970 Amendments, as the strongest air pollution control legislation, authorize the regulation of both mobile and stationary sources of pollution. The most important sections of these programs deal with establishing national air quality standards, describing a framework for the states to meet these standards, and improving procedures for fede.ral.enforcement. The EPA has thus far set national air quality standards for particulate matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, hydro- C,arbons, and nitrogen dioxide. Federal Guidelines have been published. by the EPA requiring that states submit implementation plans for the attain- ment ancl -maintenance of these standards. The 1970 Amendments also provide for more effective federal en- forcement by providing the EPA authority to issue compliance orders to any person violating applicable implementation plans or to bring civil suit against any person in violation of implementation plans, and authorize citi- zen suits to enforce the provisions of the Clean Air Amendments. T-he Clean Air Amendments are an example of a recent shift in the burden of, proof in pollution control. When the EPA now specifies that an air pollutant is a health hazard, industry must either comply with the emis- sion standard, or prove that the health hazard does not exist. 31 Solid Waste Disposal Legislation The Solid WasteDisposal Act of 1965, the 'fir.st legisiation aimed at solid waste management, is directed priiyia:rily at the loss of natural. re- sources which solid waste represents. This Act authorized a research and development program.with respect to solid waste to promote the demonstra- tion, construction, and application of solid waste management and resource recovery systems. In addition, the Act provides financial and technical assistance to states and local governments and interstate agencies in the planning and development of resource recovexy and solid waste disposal p.rograms, and promotes a national research and development program f Or improved solid waste management programs. The Resource Recovery Act of 1970 put anew emphasis on. recycling and reusing waste materials by authorizing funds for demonstration grants fo rrecycling systems and for studies of methods to encourage resource rIecovery. This Act. also requires the EPA to publish guidelines for con- struction and operation of solid waste disposal systems. In a further move to institutionalize the concern for *the protection of, the environment, the Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act of. 1969 (NEPA) establishing a national policy for the envir.onment and providing forthe Council on Environmental Quality. In recognizing the effect of man's activities on the environment, NEPA laid down the environ- mental impact statement requirements for federal. agencies which propose to undertake activities that are likely to affect. environmental quality. 4.,2 Environmental Protecti.on Institutions* The recent environmental protection legislation has required the organization or reorganization of environmental programs at. the federal, state and local levels in order to cope with the increased regulatory re- quirements of these legislative programs. An interacting set of federal, state and local environmental institutions has been established as a con- sequence of the reorganizations. Federal Activities Pursuant to Rearganization Plan 3 of 1970, the Environmental Pro- tection Agency (EPA.) was established on December 2, 1970. The EPA wa's created to pe rmit coordinated and effective government action to in sure the protection of the environment. EPA's mission is to define., achieve, and maintain environmental quality by abating and controlling pollution from point sources by utilizing a wide range of intervention strategies. These- strategies include standard- setting- for media programs, enforcement, monitoring, financia I assistance, technical aid, planning, research, method *This section summarizes discussions contained in the CEQ 2nd Annual Report, Chapters 2 and 3. 32 development, and review. The reorganization consolidated into one agency the federal programs dealing with air pollution, water pollution, solid waste disposal, pesticide regulation and environmental radiation. The EPA has organized to cope functionally with related environ- mental programs. The media and categorical programs are supervised by two administrators: one assistant administrator supervises the air and water programs, a second administrator supervises the pesticide, radia- tion and solid waste programs. Three of the five assistant administrators have line responsibilities for the major functional areas--planning and management, enforcement, and research and monitoring. Although the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the EPA work closely, their responsibilities differ significantly. The CEQ, as a staff agency in the Executive Office of the President, provides policy ad- vice, and reviews and comments on the environmental impact control activities of federal agencies. The concern of CEQ is with the. broad spectrum of environmental matters, while the EPA is a line agency with responsibility to administer and conduct federal pollution control programs Local and State Environmental Protection, Agencies This discussion focuses on state rather than local activities because federal legislation, has put more and more responsibility at the state level. In the past, environmental programs in most states were fragmented or scattered throughout many state agencies, boards and commissions. In many case 's, air and water pollution control programs were lodged in a state health department. Water pollution control programs were often incorporated into water -resource management or public water supply pro- grarns. Pe s ticide. regulation was.frequently under the health department or the agriculture department; solid waste management wa,s frequently a responsibility of the health department. Some states have reorganized to cope with the broad scope of. en- viroiiniental issues. New York, Washington, and Illinois enacted le'gfisla7 tion %vhich consolidates pollutioti coarol progranis and strearnlines pollution colltro[ authority. Illinois, for exaniple, adopted a total reorganization of its environniental programs. Three functional entities Were created by the,LState Envirotimental Protection Act of 1970. The Pollution Control Board sets standards and adjudicates enforcement proceedings. The Institute for tn- vironmental Quality conducts long range policy planning and applied re- sca rch. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency prosecutes alleged violators before the Board, issues permits and provides technical assistance, The performance of various states in regard to elements of air qual:- ity programs are shown in the following table. Theelements listed refer to requirements of state implementation plans as s pecified in the Clean Air Amendments. 0 33 State Air Quality Program Elements* States with States without Legislative Authority Authority Authority 1. Adopt emission standards and promul- gate other regulations 54 0 2 Require information on processes and potential emissions from sources of air pollution 39 15 3. Issue permits for construction of new sources of air pollution 38 16 4. Inspect facilities causing pollution 52 2 5. Require emission information from polluters ard make it available to Public 20 34 6. Require monitoring of emissions by polluters 13 41 7. Issue and enforce compliance orders 51 3 8. Enjoin standards violators 52 2 9. Take special, prompt action in case of air pollution emergencies 44 10 10. Regulate land use and transportation to meet air quality standards 5 49 1 1. Inspect automotive pollution control devices 16 38 Sou rce: EPA, Office of Air Programs. The status of development of state water quality programs is sum- marized in the following table: State Water Quality Program Elements* Program Element No. of States 1. Water Quality Standards Interstate (full federal approval with antide gradation) 46 Interstate (full federal approval without antidegradation) I Interstate (federal approval with exceptions with antide gradation) 4 Interstate (federal approval with exceptions without antidegradation) 3 Planning (based on water quality standards) 23 3. Permit System Municipal 46 Indust ria l 47 4. State Matching Grants., 34 5. Routine Treatment Plant'Inspection 46 6. State Monitoring System 49 SOurce: EPA. Office of Water Proqrams The Permit system in the preceding table refers to the existence of en- abling legislation to grant permits for discharges. "State Matching" refers to the availability of state funds to assist municipalities in building sewage treatment facilities. "Treatment Plant Inspection" refers to surveillance 'of the operation and maintenance of facilities at least once a year. *Includes District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. In some cases, figures are approximations based on best available data. 34 Solid waste management practices are also becoming increasingly rIegulated and less fragmented. As a result of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, statewide and regionwide solid waste management plans are being formulated. The progress of the state solid waste management plans funded under the provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act can be summarized as follows: '52 states are preparing a solid waste emission inventory, 42 states have prepared or are preparing a control plan and 17 states have submitted completed plans.* Aside from these reorganizations and activities, many states have introduced innovation by providing new approaches to citizen involvement, waste management and its financing, pollution charges, and applications of new technologies. In addition, some states have increased control over .1 types of land use in order to protect i I eographic areas, such as mport@nt g wetlands, from environmental degradation; to restrict potentially harmful development and facilitate desired developments. It may be noted that only five states have authority to regulate land use to meet air quality standards and only twenty-three states have initiated comprehensive planning pro- grams based on water quality standards. 4.3 Environmental Protection Planning Procedures The process by which environmental control programs are being established by envir-onmental protection agencies is becoming more and more associated with the creation of comprehensive "implementation plans" usually developed by state and local governments and reviewed by federal agencies. This trend reflects the growing recognition that envi- ronmental control programs must have clearly defined objectives and ex- plicitty designate the legislation, administration, @and resources required to carry out these programs. Air Quality Implementation Planning The air quality implementation planning process typically involves a systerns analysis approach to air resource management., The nature@pk the air pollution problem is first determined by extensive monitoring and sampling o-.f air quality. The comparison of observed air quality levels with National Ambient Air Quality Standards defines the magnitude of the problem. These ob.served air quality levels are the result of the stationary and mobile source emissions of the region under various local meteoro- logic' al and topographic conditions. Mathematical inodels, such as atmospheric dispersion models, are Hien eniployed to evaluate alternative emission. controls and to select a set (.)f control regulations which both achieve and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These emission control regulatiofts define the emis- s o f a given pollutant permitted from. a particular source type; for in- stance, different part.iculate emission control regulations may be designed *Source: EPA, Office of Solid Waste Manalgcincnt Programs. .5. ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS TO COMBINE LAND-USE PLANNING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL The previous chapters have outlined the history and procedures of la"nd-use planning and environmental control programs. To a,considerabLe 6ctent'. the development of these programs at all levels of government has be.en distinct and separate. Recently, however, two types of -institutional arrangements have been employed which seek, in the first case, to integrate land-use planning and environmental control into one agency and, in the second case, to bring together opposing environmental and developmental Viewpoints into an adversary-type confrontation to resolve environmental- land use issues - Since both methods of resolving' such issues are still somewhat rare in practice, the evaluation of the effectiveness of these alternative arrangements is still difficult. 5. 1. New Institutions Which Combine Environmental Protection and Land-Use Management In recent years, some states have given themselves new powers and have created new regional bodies which combine the interests, and techniques 6f@land-use planning and environmental concerns- . Some of these were sig- iiificant modifications' of existing powers and institutions,. while others have. been entirely new creations designed to respond directly and uniquely to the issues surrounding the relationships between environmental quality and land use. In general, these new institutions have different structures and func- tions; they respond to different and occasionally unique issues, and, in some cases, they have had little opportunity to prove their success or failure. On the basis of this limited experience, it is.not possible to say that combining developmental and environmental,management techniques in, a single agency -is a success or failure, but the existence of such institutions indicates that aJoint response has already occurred in response to the need to integrate these activities. These institutions. are not yet numerous, but they exemplify the po- tential effectiveness of this approach,when used'ip' conjunction with more traditional technological pollution controls. Hawaii--Statewide Zoning to Balance Conservation and Development Objectives Hawaii's 1961 Land Use Law was a bold attempt at accommodating a rapid rate of development while maintaining the unique natural beauty of' the islands. The law.created the Land Use Commission and charged it with dividing the entire state into four districts: conservation, agricultural, rural and urban. Lands in each district were to comply with the regulations'' of different agencies., including conservation districts- -the State Department 38 of Land and Natural Resources; agricultural and rural districts--the Land Use Commission; urban districts- -regulations of local government.. The Land Use Commission's responsibility has been, in the main, *to rule on requests for changes in district boundaries Maine- -A State's Response to, Critical Environmental and Land Use Issues Following the, Alaska oil strike and the voyage of the Manhattan through the Northwest Passage, several major oil firms proposed using,''dn'le of Maine's deepwater harbors as a site for a big oil refinery and storage fai-cility. Recognizing both the inadequacy of local land use regulations to guide such development and the state's interest in certain critical areas, the state responded with several measures, including the Site Location Law and Coastal Conveyance of Petroleum Law. Under such Acts, the Environmental Improvement Commission may exercise the police power. of the state to control the location of those developments substantially affecting local environment in order to ensure that such developments will be located in a manne r which will. have the minimal adve r s e eff e ct impact on the natural environment of their surroundings. A development must meet four loosely-defined criteria related to pollutant control .standards, traffic facilities, compatibility with natural environment and soil suitability. Althoughlarge commercial and industrial developments are'required to' obtain permits from the Commission, subdivisions inexcess of twenty acres and residential developments requiring effluent discharge permits have made up over 80T9 of the Commission's workload. Vermont Environmental Control Law The Vermont Legislature saw that the combination of two interstate highways and. a sharp increase in the number of second homes and ski resorts were certain to undo the state's rural character and its environ- mental heritage.. To meet that threat, state officials in 1970 adopted the Environmental Control Law, which created an Environmental Board and seven Regional Commissions to see to it that most developments meet ten general ciivironriientztl standards. Under the environmental standar'ds of the legislation, a development must not,cause undue air or water pollution, unreasonable soil eros.ion, undue adverse effects in the scenic and natural beauty of the area, aes-thetic or historical sites., or rare and irreplaceable natural areas, and must.be in conformance with local, regional and state land use plans. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency C-reated in 1969 under a joint compact between California and Nevada and ratified by Congress, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is requ .ired not only to provide for orderly development in the Lake Tahoe Basin, but also to preserve the Basin's environment. The compact calls for a plan to be enforced by minimum standards incorporated into 19 ordinances, including land use, subdivisions, grading, s@horeline and tree cutting. The standards derived from traditional landuse maps plus a computer derived land capabilities map that took into account and analyzed some 54 environmental variables. The- standards are binding on the five counties and one city in the Basin. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In 1965, the California Legislature recognized that if the many local 9 bvernments surrounding San Francisco Bay continued to permit shoreline developments without regard for the Bay as a whole, the Bay would be ruined.. As a result, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission was formed and was given authority to grant or withhold approval'of shore- line development proposals on the basis of health, safety and welfare of the public in the region and of a plan which it was.instructed to complete by i969. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission The State of New Jersey in 1969 established the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission with jurisdiction over the 21,000 acres of largely undeveloped wetlands across the Hudson River from Manhattan. Although,local governments can review the work and decisions of the Commission, it has final authority over planning and land use control over the region. In addition, the Commission can issue bonds, levy assess- ments, collect fees, buy land, and exercise Eminent Domain. It is author- izedto use these instruments in furthering sound development and protecting the region from air and water pollution. Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Recycled sewage in a substantial portion of the wells, with other deficiencies, compelled the Minnesota Legislature in 1967 to transform a routiiie regional platining con-irnission into the Metropolitan Council of the rwin Cities area, for its time the boldest experiment in metropolitan ptaiiniiig and developirient in the riatioii- The council's rnet-ropolitan per- spective is niade specific in its plan, the Development Guide, which is bind- ing upon various agencies required to submit their-plans to the Council and is advisory to local governments. The council has appointed a Sewer Board which is responsible for. de'veloping the metropolitan sewer system in compliance with the'Council's Development. Guide and a Park Board responsible for fostering a metro- POE Aan park systen'i in close cooperation with the Council. Although sev'e"ra'l public- work systel-IIS7 -highways, airports, transit, and housing- -remained- outside of the Council's direct authority, its responsibility for planning and development of the metropolitan sewer and park systems does give it an important influence over regional land-use issues 40 The Council's independence is bolstered by several revenue rneas@ ures. Funds for the Council and for the Park and Sewer Boards are raised from property taxes throughout the region. In 1971, the legislature passed a law intended to relieve fiscal disparities in the region by requiring that each local government therein must contribute 40% of the net growth Of commercial and industrial property tax valuations to the Council.for re'dis- tribution to various local governmental units according to population an .& need. Fiscal measures such as this, similar in intent to the one in the Hackensack Meadowlands, are essential if regional resources are to be.-.. Used effectively to resolve regional problems. 5.2 Separate Environmental and D.evelopmentAgenc ies--an Alternative to, Functional Integration In,theory and practice, there is an alternative organizational approach to addressing the relationship between planning effectively for.@ land-use development and for environmental quality, Which avoids the inte.- gratian of these historically distinct activities. The governing body at,the ' local, regional, state and federal levels could create two governmental units --one to 'represent orderly and efficient development, and another irxi- provement in the quality of the environment. In practice, a department like Planning, or Planning and Economic Development, or Econo 'mic Developmen't, would espouse the goals, principles, standards, and procedures for the best kind of land-use and economic development. And a governmental unit. su'ch as an Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Conservation and-' Natural Resources, or Conservation Commission; would be an advocate for protecting the ecological/environmental system. The premise behind this organization al form is that the relationship between orderl .y development and environment quality can best be understood and dealt with by building into the government system a strong proponent for conservation and another for development. Then the e.lected public. officials can take from both of their strategies to mold the best public policy bea.r.ing on that relationship. This adversary technique, of course,, has been the central ra'tionale and means for obtaining justice in our court system. At the federz,@L level, institutions such as the Department of Commerce andthe F)Cpartliie,nt of the lriterior often furictiori as' adversaries. In state govern, ryieiit, a goveriior can draw on the counsel of a Department of Economic Development @Lnd a Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,, Mayors and city councils have both their Departments of Real Estate and of 4f THE NEED FOR ANALYTICAL TOOLS TO EVALUATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND-USE AND ENVIRQNMENTALQUALITY The need for a better understanding of the relationship between land-use and environmental quality is reflected in the legislative.and ad- mini strative'prog ram of land use guidance and environmental protection described in the preceding chapter. The basic premise which underlies. such programs is that an institutional framework is necessary to allocate or regulate the use of land, beyond the present land market mechanisms, in, order to.avoid undesirable environmental impacts. Ideally, the policies adopted by such institutions would be based on extensive body of knowledge regarding the nature of these impacts and the alternative methods of controlling environmental damage due to present land use practices. In point of fact, this relationship is not, at present, well understood. Analytical and planning tools have, however, been devel- oped which can be used to assess certain land use policy options and evalL uate'some of the aspects of the land use-environ.mental quality relationship. The description of. these tools in the following pages, is intended only to il- lustratea few of the analytical and planning techniques that are presently available. It is not meant to characterize the vast amount of research in the fields of land use economics, urban geography, the geophysical sciences, environmental systems planning, etc. that has generated the body of knowl- edge onwhich an environmentally oriented land use policy must ultimately be based. 6.1 Present Analytical Tools for Evaluating the, Relationship between Land- Use and Environmental Quality A fairly substantial array of planning techniques are available and iiave been used to design and evaluate air and water. pollution control im-1 plementation plans. These include computeri zed inf ormation management systems such as the STORET system for water data, and S.ARO,AD and APICS systems for air data, and multiple source computerized air pollution dis 'persion models such as AQDM/IPP. The latter have been used to simu- late the relationship between point and areawide emissions meteorological phenomena and ambient air quality in urbanized regions,, Control regulations have been and are being, based on analyses performed with these models. Analogous water quality models have been applied in many river basins,.,i,n- cluding the Delaware, Susque.ha nna, Colorado, and Columbia. Current EPA air and water pollution control planning' guidelines emphasize the operational use of such models to. design and test environmental control'strategies and regulations. Serious attempts to develop land use models to, support transportation system and regional planning activities began over twenty years ago, and an 0 array of land-use- oriented transportation demand models are now used- routinely by' regional trans po rtation .,planning agencies. However, techniques which relate land use and environmental quality, have not yet reached the state of operational readiness that the more conventional air and water quality data systems and models have attained. In part, this is due to the complexity of the. problem of reducing the milieu of economic, demographic and spatial in- teractive f orces influencing regional land use into a. realistic model that can, be used to simulate the land development process. In part, this deficiency is due to the.fact that the need for such techniques in environmental planning has only recently become evident. Among the more recent attempts to bridge the gap between land use planning and pollution control planning techniques are the EPA- sponsored New Jersey Hackensack Meadowlands project, in which a conventional atmos- pheric dispersion model is being used to evaluate the impact of alternative land use plans on ambient air quality. At Argonne National Laboratory, the EPA Office of Land Use Planning is developing an atmospheric dispersion model that is specifically designed for the evaluuation of land use plans and the design of land-use-based emission controls. Both Stanford Research Institute and Argonne have developed versions of a vehicle emission simula- tion system which is interfaced with a standard, land-use-based transporta- tion demand model. The Argonne system is currently being used to evaluate alternative vehicular emission control strategies for the state of Illinois. These efforts notwithstanding., a comprehensive land-use -oriented* environmental data system, combined with regional development and en- vironmental quality planning models., is not ye t available. Although no comprehensive planning tool has yet been developed, considerable work has been done on many of its. major component parts. Among the more critical subassemblies which would be integrated within a comprehensive environmental planning model are: An econometric model which includes such elements as export and local demand for goods and services; demand for the factors of pro- JUCti0n inVeStment in manufacturing and nonmanufacturing sectors and governmental fiscal activities The Bell, (1967),model of Massachusetts and ESperance (1969) model of Ohio are typical. 'A dynamic input/output sub- model would. provide the required disaggregation by producing sectors, and estimate transactions among sectors. 2) A multisectoral demographic model which describes births, deaths, migration and total population in terms of the observed inter- and , antrargional behavior of these parameters. Models of this kind are de- scribed by Keyfitz (1968) and Rogers (1968). A labor force supply model which reflects the size and structure 0f the regional labor force in terms of, its origin, growth, and participation rates disaggregated -by sector, occupatio n, skill., age and sex. Elements of such a model have been discussed by Mincer (1966) and -Bowen and Finegan (1965). 4) A land use and spatial allocation model which describes or s.imu- lates the distribution of industrial, commercial and residential activities. Lowry(1964), Garin (1966), and Cripps and Foot (1969)have developed versions of direct allocation models, while Alonso (1960), Muth (1969) and others have proposed models which emphasize economic competition for land and markets. Forrester's (1969) model is a notable example of a simulation designed t a reflect the dynamical aspects of the urban development process. 5) Resource distribution models, such as the water resource management models described by the Harvard Water Resources Group (063), the HYDRO water resource management code (Bugliarello, 1962) and Cohen's (1970) power demand allocation model. 6) Multimodal transportation demand models which simulate trip generation and distribution, modal choice and traffic assignment processes. The Baumol-Quant "abstract model' model (1962) is an example of a stati@s- t.ical, rriultimodal origin-destination, trip generation model which reflects short-run economic influences. 7) Waste product generation and distribution models 'Such as the multisectoral, PLANTSIM model and ffie "integrated puff" atmospheric, dis- p Iersion model (Roberts, Croke, et al., 1970)'. Pyatt's (1970) Water Quality Model is typical of equivalent computational tool s for water resource management planning. In a few cases, some of. the more critical components of the compre- liensive regional model have been integrated to create major 11 subassemblies." A prime example, of.the latter is Czamanski's (1968) econometric- .demographic model of Nova Scotia, which combines a recursive, multi- sectoral econometric model with an age and sex specific coh art survival niodel. Anotlier example is the Susquehanna river. basin regional model (flanii1ton et iii., 1969), w1iich combines a crude but comprehensive planning ai-id forecasting tool. Choy (1969) lias suggested a general structure for a rnodel w1iich in- cludes most of the components described above. Ati augmented version of this colicepltial model is shown in Fig. 1. Not aIll.of the possible interr.ela- tionships, such as between t.ransportation and pollution or between environ- mental quality and land values, are shown in order to avoid excessive coniplication of the figure. 6.2 Future Trends in Environmental Land-Use Researcli Because of the complexity of a comprehensive regional environm ental lilanning model and the extensive data base that is required to support it, it is unlikely that such a tool will become a reality in the foreseeable future. NATURAL ASTE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES E N E R A T 1 @ION QUALITY PE'7 F E-CON:IMI@Tlll. ou FINAL DEMAND 4'0 L 4@ODIEL CONSUMPTION PRODUCTION FUNCTION DEMAND FOR Q(K, L) LABOR BY SECTOR '--'AL I OUTPUT @FIOR NVESTYENT 0 TPU @INUV E @STT, E DISTRIBUTION MATRIX DEMAND FOR NONRESIDENTIAL LAND DEMAND FOR WAGE RATE MARGINAL LABOR BY PRODUCTIVITY OCCUPATION, OF LABOR SKILL AND SEX CONSUMPTION FUNCTION ACTIVE LA60R FORCE TOTAL LABOR FORCE CfY' pi LABOR FORCE LABOR MIGRANTS UTILITY FUNCTION -LOCAL LABOR UNEMPLOYED FORCE L L -J LABOR FORCE SPATIAL ELIGIBLES ACTIVITY ALLOCATION 81 '71 RTHS SURVIVORS AND BUR HS POPULA ION TRANSPORTATIO DEATHS SYSTEM DEMAND NEW POPULATION DEMAND FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND I MPLOYED LA Bo R FIRCE@ MIGRANT L(Y, t@ 4 8 IRTHS EATHS D Fig. 1. A Region 0 AX -,;v; ty 7. LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL, QUALITY-- THE FEDERAL ROLE In-addition to@ its. traditional role in the management of public lands, the federal government -currently engages in a broad range of land use- oriented activities conducted by a diversity of federal agenci.e,s. With the pa.ssage of the National Environmental Policy Act and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the stage has been set for'the integra- tion of land use regulation and environmental protection. Current trends in national policy with regard to growth, land use and the environment en- hahce the likelihood that such a program will develop. This chapter describes the federal agencies involved in some form of land use regulation, the framework for evaluating the environmental im- pact of federal programs and the legislative and prog1rammatic.activity of the federal government in establishing environmental land-use control programs. 7.1 The Role of the Federal Government in Land Development, Regulation and Utilization A number of federal agencies are currently engaged in activities \,Vlh i ch, in one way or another, impact on land development and utilization, tho u.9h not necessarily in the. context of environmental protection or natural resource conservation. It is convenient to categorize these agencies in terms of whether their activities. involve dealing with land as a natural re- source, a location of functional activities, or a. medium for the disposal of waste. Agencie s which have the responsibility of monitoring the use of land, as a resource. are primarily concerned with its capacity to supply various, natural, resources or to support different forms of economic activity. @ These agencies view land in terms of such characteristics as its mineral re- sources, soil structure, agricultural potential, forestation, natural scenic value, historical significance and open space capacity. On the other hand, those agencies which consider land as a site of, some functional activity ar4,.-. niore concerned with the actual or potential activities which may take jilace on the land. This perspective is reflected i.n any- federal regulation or agency which is concerned with recreational,%, residential, commercial., industrial, agricultural, transportation, utility or, public service activities. (Note that these activity classifications are based on demographic-economic characteristics. No environmentally- orien ted land use taxonomic system yet exists.) Agencies which view land as almedium for the disposal of waste focus on its natural capacity to assimilate the various forms of waste which Preceding page blank 0 are,generated as a byproduct of the economic activities which take place on the land. These include such considerations as air pollution fallout, contamination of natural receiving waters due to surface runoff, pollution of ground water resources as a result of land disposal, practices, acid mine drainage, etc. Other than the EPA, the key federal agencies which currently have responsibilities in one or more of these areas include the departments of Commerce, Defense (DOD), Interior, Agriculture, HEW, HUD and Trans- portation (DOT), as well as the Atomic Energy Commission, (AEC), the Federal Power Commission (FPC), and the Office. of Economic Opportunity (OEO). Since the alternative ways of considering land are closely related, it is natural that in many cases, the same agencies play a significant role in all three of the categories suggested above. As a result of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a11 of these agencies are now required to assess the environmental impact of their activities. To this extent, land use management and environmental protection have been legally, if not organizationally, integrated at the federal level. The following section describes this framework for includ- ing environmental considerations in the activities of federal agencies. 7.2 The Framework for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Federal Programs As a result of recent federal legislation, in particular, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), environmental considerations are in- corporated into the federal decision-making process and programs. NEPA provides the broadest mandate for environmental protection in Federal Government actions and follows chronologically other environmental pro- tection laws acgired at specific federal programs. Some of the latter are listed in Table 1. With this package of environmental protection legislation as a background, NEPA provides a framework for environmental decision- making at the federal level. NEPA established environmental impact statement recquirments in Section 102(2)(c). These have now been sup- plemented by guidlines from the Council on Environmental Quality. A federal agency proposing a major action with significant environmental impact must,: describe the impact, study and describe alternatives to its proposal; obtain comments from environmentally expert federal, state and local agencies; and make public, in advance, its environmental analy- is and the comments of other agencies. 0 4 TABLE 1. Some Specific Federal Laws Relating to Environmental Protection The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 The Department of Transportation Act of 1966 The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended in 1958 The Wilderness Act The Federal Power Act The National Park Service Act The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended The Airport and Airway Development Act The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 The Clean Air Act of 1970 The Water Quality Control Act The Refuse Act of' 1899 The Solid Waste Disposal Act of, 1965 The Resource Recovery Act. of 1970 -The Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1947 The Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971 The federal agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise to comment on environmental impacts of federal programs are summarized., in Table II. Particular components (Administration, Office, Bureau) of the federal departments are involved, 'depending on the aspects of the environ- ment affected. For actions affecting specific geographic jurisdictions, some TABLE Il. COMMENT MATRIX- -Federal Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law or Special Expertise to Comment on Various Types of Environmental Impactsa Department or Agency Category Agric. Com. DOD HEW HUD Int. DOT AEC EPA FPC OEO ACHP Air X X X X X X X energy X X X X X X X Hazardous Substances X X X X X X X x 1and Use and Management, X X X X X X X X Noise X X X X X Physiolocial Health and human Well being X X X X X X X Transportation X X X X Urban X X X X X X W a te r X X X X X X WiIdIife X X Environmental Quality, The Second Annual Report of.the Council. 6 federal-state agencies are listed from which comment must be obtained. General categories in which these agencies have jurisdiction or special ex- pertise to comment are delineated in the table. This "comment matrixif shows both the extent of the comment procedure and the depth in environ- mental issues of various federal agencies. 7.3. Federal Authority to Establish Environmental Land-Use Controls Although EPA now has the legal authority to establish land use con- trols, this authority is at present limited, indirect, and in some areas, im- plicit rath'er than explicitly defined. This is attributable, in part, to the fact that land use. has traditionally been viewed in the context of natural resource management, regional economic development .or social welfare planning. Thus EPA currently shares the responsibility for land use plan- ning and management with a number of other federal agencies having widely divergent missions. Foremost among these are the departments of Interior, Agriculture, Tra nsportation and Housing and Urban Development. The statutory authority for EPA to utilize land use as a pollution control mode is, at present, defined in terms of a number. of enabling in- struments which focus on specific elements of the National environmental protection program; These are summarized below: Water Pollution Control Section 18 CFR 601, 32-33, which derive theirautbority from Sec- tions 8 and 22 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, prohibit EPA from making a construction grant unless a project is included in an effective current basin-wide plan for pollution abatement consistent with applicable water quality standards. The Office of Water Programs has promulgated. Guidelines for Water Quality Management Planning, which de- fine an acceptable plan. The Guidelines specifically require, in several sections, the employment of land use analysis as a too.1 of management planning and encourage the utilization of land use control devices as one of several methods of water quality management. 'I'he Refuse Act permit program also has potential for the control of land use. Where a permit application is for an existing discharge, the in-ipact of the action may affect only water quality. However, where the @ipplication is for a new discharge, action on the permit has a definite im- p,ict on land use because it approves, alters or disapproves location of an industrial discharge. Disapproval may often discourage industry (unless 100% treatment is envisioned) from locating in a particular area. A number of bills that are intended to provide additional statutory. authority for the control of water pollution are now before the Congress. . For example, Senate bill 2770 requires that states have authority to prevent construction of any new source which will prevent the attainment or main- tenance of water quality objectives (Section 106), that states regulate the location, modification and construction of any facilities which-result in any discharge or runoff of pollutants (Section 209) and that stat.es and the federal government shall certify dis.charges (Section 401). Air Pollution Control Section 110 of the Clean Air Act specifies a number of factors the Administrator of the EPA must consider before approving an implementa- tion plan. Two of these are: 1) Whether the plan includes land-use and transportation controls as may be necessary, and 2) Whether it includes a procedure for the review of the location of.certain types of stationary sources of pollution. Solid-Waste Management The EPA authority to regulate or promote land use planning as a solid waste management strategy is limited to federal facilities and to contingency agreements exacted through federal grant programs. Executive Order 11514 requi Ires environmental impact statements on proposed fede@ral ,activities accompanied by provision for public information, hearings, etc. This orde'r allows EPA to control waste management activities and systems, p, riot to their establishment, at federal installations. Waste management requirements at federal facilities are also governed by Executive Or- der 11507; however EPA's extramural responsibility in this regard con- sists mainly of providing technical assistance where requested.. Other EPA solid waste management programs ated to land use, controls are authorized under the Solid Waste. Dispo-s al, Act of 1965 and the Resource Recovery Act.of 1970. Planning and demonstration grants are provided only if recipients agree to carry out certain cornmitrnents such ,as abandoning open burning and duniping, having an existing co@nprehensive solid waste plan (denio ns t ration criteria), or accept a commitment. to im- plement. zi.solid waste planning program (planning grant. criteria), EPA has no power to close open durnps, override local zoning, or establish solid waste facilities where local communities fail to do so. Pesticide. Control The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1947,"as ammded, conveys no indirect, statutory jurisdiction for environmental land use regulation. It focuses on testing and labeling of pesticides. . The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971 makes the label directions binding and enforceable. Radiation Program The current EPA legal mandate for utilization of land use controls is very indirect. The Office of Radiation has authority (Section 274h of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954) to determine standards for atmospheric radia- tion concentrations beyond the boundaries of AEC licensed nuclear facilities. On that basis, AEC defines facility characteristics and specifications to achieve the results desired by EPA, as well as to substantially preclude nuclear accidents. Under this arrangement, EPA could specify proper zoning of the area around a facility as one of the design conditions for a nuclear power plant, nuclear fuel fabrication plants, nuclear fuel repro- cessing plants and radioactive waste disposal site. However, direct au- thority (10 CFR 100) for establishing site criteria remains a function of the AEC. Noise Program The general provisions of the NEPA, Section 402C of the Clean Ail Act, as amended, requires all federal agencies to consult with EPA regard- ing any proposed programs or activities which may create an environmental problem. This provision can be interpreted to include noise nuisances. Since the activities of other agencies, particularly the DOT, DHUD, and Department of the Interior, frequently involve land- us e- oriented programs, EPA therefore now has, at least in pr Iinciple, indirect responsibilities with regard to,the control.of noise sources throughland guidance programs. Legislation which is currently before the Congress, in particular, house bill HR 11021 and Senate bill S1016, has been designed to provide EPA with specific authority to promote and establish noise abatement programs, The Grganization of Present EPA Land Use Programs The EPA thus has a limited mandate to incorporate land use man- agement into its environmental protection activities. Responsibility for this mode of pollution. control has thus far been dispersed throughout its various'niedia and categorical programs or treated with,in the context of 11:1`11A relationships with other federal agencies. The dispersed, and as yet, 11mited use made by EPA of land management as a pollution control mode reflects the somewhat disaggregated character of its statutory authority. The Office of Water Programs sponsors research relating land use and water quality., Since it evaluates basin and regional water quality man- agement plans, the Office of Water Programs maintains a direct relation- ship with-the Department of HUD with which it shares r .esponsibility for the disburse ment of. federal waste water facility construction grant funds. This relationship represents the first, and as yet the only, formal channel of communication, other than the A-95 review process, between the agency responsible for the national environmental protection program and local aind regional planning agencies. This joint EPA-HUD activity represents the nearest approach to date to the realization of a land use oriented inter-, agency environmental protection program. The EPA Office of Air Programs currently conducts and sponsors a number, of research -and planning projects which' are directly or indirectly oriented toward land use planning and control. These include the develop- ment of traffic control strategies for six major cities -which will be unable to meet carbon monoxide standards, the New Jersey Hackensack Meadow- I 'a 0.nds land use planning project and the Argonne National Laboratory air pollution land use planning technique development program. The Office of Air Programs also provides technical assistance, and advice relating to such land use oriented activities as the impact of chemical spraying on agricul- tural land management and the feasibility of open burning as a tool for forest management. The Office of Solid Waste Management Programs administers demon- stration grant programs which are concerned with the use of land fill for halting erosion, reclaiming strip mines and wetlands. This office provides rIegional and interstate solid waste planning g.rants and promotes programs such as Mission 5000, which airns to eliminate and/or convert to sanitary landfills a total of 5000 of the more than 15,000 open.dumps in the U.S. during the.period FY 1,971. to FY 19,72. The Office of Pesticide Programs has no -activity studying or in- volving land use controls., The Office of Radiation Programs reviews applications to the AEC. for the construction of nuclear facilities to insure that these facilities will not violate atmospheric radiation standards. Although in the past, the EPA reviewers have generally recommended design modification rather than expansion of the land buffer, the latter approach is a potential option. TheEPA Office of Federal Activities is currently investigating a wide variety of land nianagenient practices at fede.ral installations and on- public lands. It has reviewed environniental impact. statei-nents for Depart- nient of Transportation highway projects, nuclear power plant sites, .Corps of Engineers dredging and fill permits and HUD new c,ornmunity, proposals. 8. TRENDS IN NATIONAL POLICY WITH*REGARD TO GROWTH, LAND USE AND THE ENVIRONMENT The preceding discussion has summarized the existing framework for the integration of environmental protection and land management at the Federal level and has described the nature of the available legal authority for the Federal EPA to promote and employ land use. regulations. It is important to recognize that current trends in the development of national policy with regard to growth, land use and the environment are likely to exert a profound influence on the future of these programs. Some of these national policy trends are described in the following pages. In his State of the Union message of January 1970, the President called.for a national policy of balanced growth. , A number of issues emerged in,.high level public discussion in response to this call: population size and distribution, the environment, education and consumerism, and the effects of basic scientific and,technological development. These issues r.elate stron''ly 9 to economic growth and the way national resources, both human and physical, are allocated. 8.1 Toward an Urban Growth Policy A series of bills amending variou.s programmatic legislation has been introduced that reflects. the broad concern.with balanced growth policy. Among some of the more significant measures which may affect the use of land and its relationship to the environment are included: Manpower Training and Mobility Assistance Act of 1970, which provides incentives for poor people to move to rural growth center.s, or medium size cities and suburbs with labor shortages; Business and Industrial Location Incentives Act of 1970, that pro- vides incentives for the location of new or expanded economic activity in labor surplus areas; and New Community Development Act of 1970, which provides for fo rmulation of -a national urban growth policy, the development of new communities, the establishment of rational urban growth pdt- terns and the clevelopment of obsolescent or decaying inner city areas. The Urban Growth and New Community Act directs the Domestic, Council to prepare an urban growth report every two years beginning with February 1972. The report is to contain, for national urban growth; 1) information on trends, 2) Summary of problems, Preceding pag6 blank 3) evaluation of Federal efforts, 4) ass,essment of interstate planning, 5), review of State, local and private plans, 6) needs and actions to implement plans, programs and policies, and 7), further recommendations. The report,is the response to legislative findings that a. growth and population redistribution has produced an imbalan.Cf-I that threatens resources and the environment, b. Federal programs frequently produce these problems and need coordination, and C. the Federal Government should assume responsibility for national urban growth policy, whose general goals are specified. This act further provides for expanded varieties of public assistance to "new town" developments including interest guarantees for public agencies undertaking such development, planning grants, public facilities grants, et-,-. These provisions reinforce those of the Housing Act of 1968 for assistance to new towns "in-towns,", ones located at a small community nucleus, new town metropolitan satellites and free-standing communities. There is con- siderable activity in this area with HUD guaranteeing almost $125 million-. in loans for six recently launched new towns. 8.2 Land-Use Pol icy One of the inputs to Federal level discussion of land'use policy is the Public Land Law Review Commission that was instituted by law in 1964. A series of legislative proposals for national land use policy have resulted. Major emphasis is on land that is in Federal ownership but privately owned land is also addressed. The bills include: - Public Land Policy Act of 1971 (HR 72 11 that undertakes to pi-o_ vide central guidelines for the use of Federally administered lands and to provide grants for State and local coordination of plans for such lands. - National Land Use Policy Act.of 1971 (S992/HR 4332) which con- centrates on institutional reform of locally planned and regulated land. It requires the States to regulate and manage land use in areas of critical environmental concern: coasts and shorelines, historic and scenic areas, and places impacted by key facilities such as airports and highway interchanges. (This is the Adminis- tration's bill,) 57 Land and Water Resources.-Act of 1971 (S632). This bill deals with the same issues as the Administration's bill but envisions a Federal level Land and Water Resources Council, and a series of River Basin Commissions, declared byJhe President, to co- ordinate plans. It specifies the content JStatewide plans. National Coastal and Estuarine Zone Manag, ement Act of 1971 '(S582). This bill states a policy of conserving Isuch zones. It provides for grants for the development by the States of man- agement programs and their administration for coasts and estuaries. 8.3 Alternative Institutional and Organizational Systems for Environmental Land-Use Planning and Management The national policy legislation described in the preceding section could result in the creation of new governmental institutions, but it is equally possible that the integration of land-use planning and environmental p@otection might be realized through alterations in present jurisdictional responsibilities among existing Federal, State, regional, and local agencies. The following discussion suggests some of the possibilities. Centralized Federal Response The relationships between equivalent agencies in Federal,,State, and local systems of government have generally been fostered through a combi- nation of: 1) Enabling legislation which define.s the jurisdictional authority of related agencies at different levels of government, and 2) Federal and State grants-in-aid programs designed to subs,idize socially desirable courses of action. Such systems of complementary agencies, which discharge similar respon- sibilities at different levels of government, have proliferated in recent year.s. It is characteristic of these systems that a singl e Federal agency- at the top of the hierarchy will prornote research, forniula,te Federal regu- lations and disburse Federal grant funds to agencies at a lower level of governt-rient, for example, State or regional regulatory or planning agencies. Corresponding State agencies implement programs, develop State regula- tions and'disburse State funds to regional and municipal agencies, etc. Such a relationship of Federal, State, and local interactions has developed in the National environmental prote.ction program, where Federal EPA grants for; implementation planning, State and local control agency development and. waste treatment facility.constructio'n h,ave provided an incentive for the development of desirable pollution control programs. This general pattern of a hierarchy of mis sion- oriented comple- mentary agencies is repeated in many other departments of government, and it suggests one, possible approach to the problem of integrating land- use planning with environmental protection. That is, a single Federal agency could be assigned the responsibility and jurisdictional authority to develc-P and promote environmental land-use regulatory activities at the State, re- gional and local levels. The states would be required to develop appropriate environmentally- oriented land-use implementation plans, supported by ade- quate legal authority and administered by suitably equipped State and local agencies, A Federalgrant program to induce appropriate planning activities and partially subsidize control programs could be established and admin.- istered by the designated Federal agency. Decentralized Federal Response It does not follow that the approach described above is the only, or even the most desirable, means of achieving environmentally- or,iented land- use regulation at the State and local levels. The joint EPA-HUD wastewa,---r facility construction grant program, suggests a somewhat less centralized alternative, Through the medium of the jointly administered grant program, a formal linkage between the EPA and its complementary agencies at lower levels of government and the HUD has been established. Wastewater faci-Jity grant applications from municipalities must be integrated within the context of basin and regional water quality management plans certified by both the State environmental protection agencies, which are complementary to the EPA, and by HUD, --designated Area Planning Offices--the latter, are the re- gionalIpl.annin g agencies which are complementary to HUD. Detailed plan- ning guidelines were jointly prepared by EPA and HUD, and some of the. analytical techniques required are supplied by EPA. T his approach could serve as a model for a more broadly based land -use -oriented environmental protection program in which similar lial- sons are established between the EPA and its complementary Federal agencies. For example, an analogous arrangement between EPA and the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) might be established for the disbursement of Federal transportation system construction funds. Not onlV would Federal construction grants be contingent on the preparation of environmental in-ipact statements as.is now the case, but it would also.be necessary to demonstrate that proposed construction projects were, inte- grated within environmentally- oriented regional land-use plans jointly pre- pared by S 'tate environmental protection agencies, regional planning agencies and the transportation planning agencies. A less structured organizational response would involve the estab- lishnient of a series of joint interagency programs as described above, but within the,context of the present disaggregated organizational structure tha:: now exists in the Federal agencies. For example, instead of establishing a. 59 single EP A environmental land-use planning office which would have re- sponsibility for all waste management activities insofar as they are suscep- tible to abatement, and control through land-use regulation, the responsibility for the establishment of interagency programs could be dispersed among the ,EPA Office of Air Programs, Office of Water Programs, Office of Solid , Waste Management Programs, etc. In effect, the precedent established by the EPA-HUD wastewater facility construction program would be repeated for each of the media and categorical programs individually, and similar .liaisons would be established between EPA offices and other Federal land- use-oriented agencies. Sets of guidelines, a planning grant mechanism and programs to develop and disseminate information concerning techniques and procedures for environmental land-use planning and regulation would be required. Local and State Response The alternatives described above are all characterized by what has become a classical pattern of Federal intervention in, or promotion of, State, regional and.local activities in order to induce a socially beneficiaI result. Land-use regulation presents special problems in t his regard, since, with the exception of Federal control of the use of public lands, it has,tra- ditionally been implemented at the local levels of government by municipal zoning boards and building departments, or as a result of the construction of highways, airports, wastewater collection systems, etc. The localized character of land-u.se regulation might be preserved but augmented to, in- clude environmental protection features if, instead of reproducing the clas- sical Federal-State- regional- local hierarchy outlined above, the Federal posture, were more analogous to that of the Atomic Energy Commission or the Federal Power Commission, which function in a regulatory capacity. In order to insure that the local and regional institutions which directly or .indirectly regulate land-use employ appropriate environmental impact assessment techniques and conduct effective regulatory activities, the Federal Government could develop and disseminate guidelines, techniques and environmental reporting procedures. Once these were implemented at the local level, the Federal role would-involve comparatively,.passive reg_ ulatory activities rather than active land management program administr Iation. 61 9. IN SUMMARY This document has outlined the case,Jor integrating land-use plan- ning and regulation with environmental protection, a4id-has indicateg some of the legal, institutional, organizational, and technical aspects of this ap- proach to the preservation of environmental qu ality. - The conclusions which c an b'e drawn from it and from the present state of environmental land-use planning can only be of the most general nature, but from the examination of this issue it is clear that: l.' There is a growing recognition of the need to subject public and priva -te decisions regarding land use to a much closer scrutiny with regard to their environmental implications. 2. A great deal of legislative and organizational activity has taken place in the past few years regarding this issue. 3. An array of evaluative techniques now used either for land-use planning or for environmental planning may be of potential use in formulating environmental land use policies. 4. If land use :guidance and environmental rotection objectives p a .re to be integrated, programs for merging the procedures and practices of groups involved in these functions must be developed. 5. The feasibility of employing land use as a.means of environ-, mental protection,as well as. its eventual effectiveness, will depend very heavily on how effectively appropriate liaisons can be established between responsible agencies at the Federal, State and Local levels. Preceding page blank ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document was prepared by members of the staffs of the Center for Environmental Studies and Applied Mathematics Division of Argonne National Laboratory. The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the following individuals who have contributed their time and benefit of their experience to this study- Jack Oppenheimer Executive Secretary, President's Air Quality Advisory Board Alan Levin Executive Secretary, President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board Joseph Krivak Office of Water Programs, EPA Bernard Hyde Office of Water Programs, EPA Ronald Venezia Chief, Office of Land Use Planning, Office of Air Programs, EPA John Robson Office of Land Use Planning, Office of Air Programs, EPA Ralph Luken Office of Program Development, EPA Frank Covington Region IX Office, EPA David, Calkins Region IX Office, EPA DATE DUE TER GAYLORDINO. 2333' PRINTED IN U.S.A. 3 6668 14106 5435