The EPA Programs and

Land Use Planning

Russell E. Train*

To define and achieve good use of land may be the most funda-
mental of all environmental objectives. In the broadest sense,
the way in which we use our land determines the way in which
our society functions. Land is the basic source of our food, fiber,
shelter, water, and oxygen. Sound land use is fundamental to
preserving stable ecosystems, to controlling pollution, and to
creating the political, social, and economic structure of our
society.I

This observation about land use in a recent report of the Council
on Environmental Quality may well reflect our current awareness
of this issue. This awareness has not come quickly or easily. Some
forty years ago, a wholly different perspective seemed more rep-
resentative:

In the United States there is more space where nobody is than
where anybody is. This is what makes America what it is. 2

Long before this rather optimistic 1936 statement about
America's abundant supply of open space, we had busily begun the
task of filling it. In the post-World War II years which followed,
our country was so busy growing that we failed to develop ration-
al, equitable systems for deciding how best we should grow, nor

* Russell E. Train is the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C. He has served in that position since September 1973.
Previously, Mr. Train was the first Chairman of the President's Council on Environ-
mental Quality (1970-73); Undersecretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior
(1969-70); President of the Conservation Foundation (1965-69); and Judge of the U.S.
Tax Court (1957-65). Mr. Train founded the African Wildlife Fund in 1959 and
served as Vice President of the U.S. World Wildlife Fund from 1959 to 1969. He has
represented the United States in many international environmental endeavors. Mr.
Train holds an LL.B. degree from Columbia University School of Law (1948).

1. COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: THE

FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1 (1974).

2. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (1936).

255



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAw

did we have any clear sense of the resultant social, economic and
environmental consequences. We were not then particularly con-
cerned, for example, about how patterns of growth and develop-
ment might affect the most basic of human needs-the mainte-
nance of a healthy environment. Only recently have we begun to
realize how much the way we use our land affects the quality of
our environment.

The thrust of this article will be to examine some aspects of this
relationship between land use and environmental quality within the
framework of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs.
Examination of these aspects will yield some distinctions between
the requirements of land use planning and those of land use con-
trol, some limits on the potential of land use control, and a role for
land use as an integrative device for other environmental media in
EPA programs.

More than half of our nation's land area (57 percent) is classified
as agricultural, although only about one-fourth of that (15 percent
of the total) is used for cropland. Of the land classified as non-
agricultural (43 percent of the total), more than half is forested.
Most of what remains is marsh, open swamp, desert, tundra and
the like, which may have great ecological value but offer limited
scope for development by man. The most commercially valuable of
the remaining acreage is the 60 million-plus acres (less than 3 per-
cent of the total) which is classified as urban areas, roads and other
built-up areas.3 This fraction of the United States' domain is the
focus of land use decisions. It is where most of us live, where most
business and commerce are located, and where most of the irre-
versible commitments to intensive land use have been made.

Over the years, increasing public and governmental concern over
the use and misuse of the nation's land has led to various forms of
land use planning and control. New legislation and regulatory re-
quirements are being considered at the local, state and federal lev-
els of government. Many local, regional (sub-state) and state land
use planning processes, plans and controls have been adopted.4

3. U.S. DEP'T OF AGRICULTURE, EcoNoMIC RESEARCH SERVICE, MAJOR USES OF

LAND IN THE UNITED STATES: SUMMARY FOR 1971 (1971), cited in COUNCIL ON

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: THE SIXTH ANNUAL

REPORT OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 162 (1975).

4. See F. Bosselman & D. Callies, The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control
(1972) (prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality; published by the U.S.
Government Printing Office).

256 [2: 255



The EPA Programs

The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that many of
its programs designed to achieve specific environmental quality ob-
jectives are closely related to land use planning and decision-
making precepts.5 Patterns of land use significantly affect the na-
ture, amount and concentration of air and water pollutants, noise
emissions, solid waste and other environmentally harmful by-
products generated by our society. Conversely, environmental pro-
tection requirements can significantly affect the decisions which
shape land use patterns.

Given the increasingly complex relationship between land use
and environmental quality, the EPA has a responsibility to ensure
that its various programs for particular environmental media (air
and water, for example) do not have significant adverse effects on
other media, including land. The EPA has a further responsibility
to provide leadership to secure full and proper consideration of en-
vironmental quality objectives in local, regional and state land use
planning and decision-making and to provide assistance to other
government agencies making or influencing land use decisions
which affect environmental quality.

Land use planning and decision-making is one of the most com-
plex and least understood domestic concerns facing America today.
The "frontier" land ethic, the rights of private property owners, the
economic imperatives of local communities, the limited role of state
and federal government, and a variety of other deep-seated and
long-standing values and principles influence every facet of our
present land use system. As a result, agreement on a national land
use policy is nearly impossible.6 Yet as much as we cling to these
values, most of us would concede that one of our most precious
national resources-our land-is being committed daily to new, es-
sentially irreversible uses without sufficient insight to the future.

5. See F. Bosselman, D. Feurer & D. Callies, EPA Authority Affecting Land Use,
March 12, 1974 (prepared for the Office of Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-1560).

6. Several land use bills have been introduced in the Congress during the past
four years. Of the major national land use policy bills, S. 632, 92d Cong., 2d Sess.
(1972) and S. 268, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973) have been passed by the Senate. H.R.
7211, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972) was reported by the House Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee, but was not considered on the floor. H.R. 10294, 93d Cong., 2d
Sess. (1974) was also reported by the Committee, but was returned to Committee by
a narrow margin in June 1974. In July 1974, Representative Udall introduced H.R.
16028, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), a bill substantially the same as H.R. 10294.

1976] 257



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

I. LAND USE PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

A thorough description of land use problems is not intended
here, since much has been written on this subject recently by
others.7 Nonetheless, some introductory thoughts of a general na-
ture may be helpful as a context.

I define land use planning broadly to mean planning how we
organize our activities in space. Planning for physical and economic
growth includes residential, commercial, industrial and transporta-
tion facilities to provide needed housing, schools, shopping, em-
ployment, commerce and other essential goods and services. And
equally as important, planning the use and preservation of land for
production of food, fiber, energy and minerals, as habitat for wild-
life, as a recreational and aesthetic resource, and as an integral
element in the continued health of the atmospheric and hydrologic
systems of the earth. It means being concerned about the qualities

of use to which we put land, as well as the qualities of land which
we use. Thus, I do not conceive the planning and regulation of the
use of land as "anti-growth," but rather the creation of a process
within which orderly and necessary growth can take place and, at
the same time, afford protection to the natural systems upon which
we all depend.

The American land use paradox can be summed up in these sim-
ple observations: an admirable and enduring quality Americans
seem to have is the ability to respond well in times of crises, and
an agonizing frailty we have is the seeming inability to anticipate
far enough in advance and plan to avert many crises before they
are upon us.

7. See, e.g., Haskell, Land Use and the Environment: Public Policy Issues, 5 BNA
ENviR. RPTR., Monograph No. 20 (1974). See references cited in note 110 infra and
the following reports for further discussion of issues surrounding land use and en-
vironmental protection: B. Berry et al., Land Use, Urban Form and Environmental
Quality, 1974 (prepared for the EPA; available from Department of Geography, Uni-
versity of Chicago); Harbridge House, Inc., Key Land Use Issues Facing EPA, Feb-
ruary, 1974 (submitted to Office of Planning & Evaluation, EPA); Land Use and the
Environment: An Anthology of Readings (V. Curtis ed. 1973) (prepared by the
American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, Illinois); Managing the Environ-
ment (Office of Research and Development, Environmental Studies Division, EPA
ed. November, 1973) (EPA Report No. 600/5-73-010); A. Strong & J. Keene, En-
vironmental Protection Through Public and Private Development Controls, May,
1973 (EPA Report No. R5-73-018); C. Thurow, W. Toner & D. Erley, Performance
Controls for Sensitive Lands, March, 1975 (EPA Report No. 600/5-75-005); and in
preparation: M. Alford et al., Evaluation of Existing Land Use Controls. See also
H. R. Doc. No. 94-253, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975).

258 [2: 255



The EPA Programs

In the late 1960's and early 1970's, a series of events-the in-
creasingly noxious atmosphere of Los Angeles, the eutrophication
of Lake Erie, and the Santa Barbara oil spill, to name just a few
-indicative of a more pervasive condition, signaled the appearance
of an environmental crisis. We realized that the environment could
not withstand indefinitely the pollution load we were releasing into
the air and water and that substantial damage, often irreparable,
had been done to fragile ecosystems through years of expansive
growth unchecked by an environmentally sensitive perspective.
Perhaps more importantly, the threat was manifested directly in
terms of human health. The public policy response was rapid and
vigorous.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)8 became law on
January 1, 1970, creating the Council on Environmental Quality9

and establishing the environmental impact analysis process.'0 The
President consolidated federal pollution control authorities in the
Environmental Protection Agency," and Congress swiftly over-
hauled existing environmental legislation, passing the Clean Air Act
of 1970,12 the Resource Recovery Act of 1970," the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,14 the Noise Control
Act of 1972,15 the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuary Act
of 1972,16 the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Control Act of 1972,'7 and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.18
Federal legislation to regulate toxic substances'9 and to establish
national land use policy is still being debated.20

8. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-47 (1970).
9. NEPA §§ 201-07, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4341-47 (1970).
10. NEPA § 102, 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (1970). In spite of its persistent critics, the

environmental evaluation techniques involved in the environmental impact state-

ment process, which applies to every major federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (1970), have revolu-
tionized the way we address some of our most important land use related decisions.

11. Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086 (1970).
12. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1857-58a (1970).
13. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3251-59 (1970).
14. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1376 (Supp. III, 1973).
15. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4901-18 (Supp. III, 1973).
16. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1401-44 (Supp. III, 1973).
17. 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-36y (Supp. III, 1973).
18. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f to j-9 (Supp. IV, 1974).
19. At the time of this writing, a toxic substances bill, S. 3149, 94th Cong., 2d

Sess. (1976), has been approved by the Senate and is due to be taken up in the

House.

20. See note 6 supra.

1976] 259



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

The measures already enacted and now being implemented have
done much to stem the environmental crisis by creating ambitious,
enforceable pollution abatement programs. They also have laid the
foundation for future planning to prevent pollution in the first
place. As we now know only too well, however, the cost of rem-
edying past abuse is substantial.21

In 1973 and 1974, we were confronted by an energy crisis pre-
cipitated by the Arab oil embargo. We learned that we had become
dangerously dependent upon foreign sources of petroleum, and
thus vulnerable to external political influence over the energy upon
which our entire economic system depends. We learned that our
own energy resources are not unlimited. And again, the country
responded.22 Voluntary energy conservation measures and govern-
mental initiatives during 1974 helped avert a more severe short-
term crisis.23 These combined measures, if maintained, should
greatly alleviate more serious energy problems in the years ahead.
But again, this will have to be achieved with substantial costs
which might have been less had we perceived the problem and
acted at an earlier stage.

The analogy to land use is obvious and the lesson should be
clear. There is a need for immediate action to develop effective
ways to deal with our patterns of growth and development. We
cannot afford the luxury of waiting for more dramatic signs of a
crisis. The costs of undoing misguided land use decisions could
well be beyond our physical and economic means. The self-
cleaning properties of the air and water, over-taxed as they are, do

21. Estimates vary, but the latest figures available (1976) indicate that the cost of
cleaning up the air to the level required by the national standards is $290 billion,
and the cost necessary to meet national water quality standards is estimated to be
approximately $190 billion over the next decade (including investment, operating
and maintenance costs, and interest costs). See U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, COST OF AIR AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL: 1976-1985 (forthcoming).

22. For a brief period during early 1974, the EPA received and shouldered its
share of the "blame" for the energy crisis. A number of analyses were conducted to
show that the energy cost of pollution control programs is now and will continue to
be a tiny fraction of total energy consumption. It was also demonstrated that energy
conservation and environmental protection are more often in harmony than in con-
flict. See id.

23. These conservation measures included the federally-mandated lowering of
automobile speed limits pursuant to the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation
Act, Pub. L. No. 93-239, 87 Stat. 1046, and 23 C.F.R. §§ 658.1-.15 (1974); and the
lowering of thermostats by several degrees in all federal buildings. 34 C.F.R. Part
232, Appendix C (1974).

260 [2: 255



The EPA Programs

not exist in the case of land. Our land use decisions are more per-
manent and irreversible, and the damage more lasting, affecting
not only us but future generations as well.

In recent years, a number of significant studies have been made
of the diverse implications of our land use decisions and growth
patterns.2 4 One recurring theme in these studies is that the way
we organize our activities in space affects everything around us: the
quality of our physical environment, the nature of our social envi-
ronment, the modes of travel we choose to get from one place to
another, the amount of energy we consume, the cost of essential
goods and services.

One of these studies, The Costs of Sprawl,25 undertaken jointly
by the EPA, the Council on Environmental Quality and the De-
partment of Housing and Urban Development, reaches several
conclusions relevant to this discussion. (1) In terms of environmen-
tal costs, sprawling low density communities stimulate more au-
tomobile use and create 45 percent more air pollution than higher
density planned communities. (2) In terms of energy costs, planned
higher density communities can save up to 44 percent in energy
now consumed by sprawled communities, through savings in resi-
dential heating and air conditioning costs and decreased automobile
use. (3) In terms of economic costs, operating and maintenance
costs of sprawling low density communities are higher and require
44 percent more investment capital than higher density planned
communities. (4) In terms of land utilization, four times as much
land is used for residential purposes in low density sprawl com-
munities as in higher density planned communities, and only two-
thirds as much is dedicated to open space.26

The major importance of this study and others like it is not that
it provides any single, best answer to guide future growth and de-
velopment, but that it identifies and quantifies some of the key
factors that should be considered before land use decisions are
made. In short, it points out the diverse impacts of land use deci-

24. See note 6 supra and notes 25 and 110 infra.
25. Real Estate Research Corporation, the Costs of Sprawl: Detailed Cost

Analysis, April, 1974 (prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality, the De-
partment of Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection
Agency).

26. Real Estate Research Corporation, The Costs of Sprawl: Executive Summary
2-5, April, 1974 (prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency).

1976] 261



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

sions and illustrates the necessity for careful, effective land use
planning.

In the awakening years of the environmental movement, the
issue of land use was seldom viewed as important as air and water
pollution or solid waste management. This emphasis has changed.
A recent survey conducted for the EPA found that municipal offi-
cials identify "land use" and "growth" as their two most serious
environmental problems.27

Today we realize that land use issues lie at the heart of many of
the most critical environmental decisions facing the nation,
whether they be air quality implementation plans, decisions on
where to locate large-scale energy facilities, policies for use in our
public lands, how best to manage the national parks and forests,
seasonal home subdivisions in the mountains and along the coasts,
or problems of urban encroachment on valuable natural areas. In
short, land use has evolved as one of our most serious environmen-
tal problems, and formulation of land use policy has become indis-
tinguishable from the formulation of environmental policy.

There are a number of reasons for this evolution. First, land use
issues are often many-sided and often call for value judgments re-
lated to acceptable degrees of development and of mitigation of
adverse impacts. The effects of land use decisions are widespread
throughout the range of environmental concerns, including pollu-
tion, crowding, and loss of wildlife and natural cover; thus, land
use issues require an extraordinary degree of understanding of sys-
tem interrelationships and ecological balance.

Second, the job of institution-building for better land use in-
volves the difficult task of reforming an existing and complicated
structure of sometimes overlapping and often fragmented deci-
sion-making processes. Developing the EPA's air and water pollu-
tion control programs and other areas of environmental concern
was somewhat easier since there were fewer governmental entities
to deal with and less diffusion of institutional commitment to those
programs' goals. When we look at land use, however, we en-
counter a wide array of decision-making bodies, each with its con-
stituency, interests, requirements and regulations, as well as sense

27. See S. Carter, M. Frost, C. Rubin & L. Sumek, Environmental Management

and Local Government, February, 1974 (prepared by the International Management

Association for the EPA) (EPA Report No. 600/5-73-016).

[2: 255262



The EPA Programs

of self-preservation. This makes change harder to accomplish.
Third, the kind of basic reform in our attitudes toward land use

which is required to meet the challenge of development and
preservation pressures in our country today necessitates a reexami-
nation of some of our most deep-seated values regarding the pri-
vate use of land and the public welfare.

Land use planning should not be an end in itself, but it can
provide the means to consider and resolve conflicting environmen-
tal, social and economic goals related to specific land uses. Through
the process of balancing these goals, land use planning provides a
basis for determining the location and timing of various single or
multiple uses of our land resources.

Sound land use planning is not intended to restrict or prohibit
economic development or freedom of choice. It is a process in-
tended to assure that choices involving the commitment of land
resources are made wisely, that a full range of alternatives is con-
sidered, and that decisions which broadly affect our society are
made with reasonable opportunity for the interests of the society as
a whole to be taken into account. It should facilitate general
economic development by maximizing more efficient use of basic
resources. Land use planning should ensure that growth deemed
desirable by the public at large is planned and managed in a way
which will minimize adverse impacts on the environment.

The role which the federal government plays in promoting more
effective land use planning and influencing land use decisions has
become increasingly more significant. Many problems which were
once thought of as merely local in scope and impact have emerged
as regional, statewide, or national concerns. These problems over-
lap not only in their geographic dimensions but also in their pro-
gram dimensions. Consider, as a partial sample, the following
federal programs variously affecting land use decisions: forest man-
agement, soil conservation and rural development programs of the
Department of Agriculture; the coastal zone management program
of the Department of Commerce; civil works projects of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers; community development and
flood insurance programs of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development; public land management, fish and wildlife, outdoor
recreation, and water, land and mineral resource development
programs of the Department of the Interior; and airport, highway,
railroad and mass transit programs of the Department of

1976] 263



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Transportation.2 8 These programs involve direct federal actions
(navigation, irrigation and flood control projects, public housing),
federal loans and grants (coastal zone management, metropolitan
areawide planning, sewage treatment plant construction), tax
policies, regulatory programs and transportation policy. 2 9 In all,
there are nearly 140 separate federal programs having a significant
effect on state and local land use planning and decision-making. 30

Not the least of the federal programs which affect land use plan-
ning and decision-making are those administered by the EPA-air,
water, solid waste, noise, and to some extent, even the pesticide
and radiation programs.

II. THE IMPACT OF EPA PROGRAMS ON LAND USE

The EPA was established in 1970 to bring together a number of
already existing federal environmental programs. Testimony be-
fore Congress in 1970 by the Chairman of the Advisory Council on
Executive Organization set forth the reasoning for creating the
Agency:

Such fragmentation is . . . characteristic of organizational re-
sponses to problems that were first perceived independently.
Such piecemeal organizational structure becomes inadequate
when the interrelation of the problem and the solution becomes
the dominant factor. In our opinion, the present fragmentation of
pollution control programs among several agencies of govern-
ment no longer serves the public interest.31

There is not perfect structural arrangement which will reconcile
all interests or resolve all conflicts . . . . The reorganization pro-

vides an opportunity to integrate the functions and activities of
those programs incorporated in the EPA. In doing so, the poten-
tial for effectiveness of these programs is enhanced.32

Since its initial creation, a number of additional pieces of en-

28. See Tekenekron, Inc., Applied Research Division, Survey of Land Use Re-

lated Activities of Federal Agencies in Relation to EPA Programs, February, 1974

(prepared for the EPA).
29. See Haskell, supra note 7, at 16-17.
30. See OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, CATALOGUE OF FEDERAL

DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE, June, 1975.

31. Hearing on Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, Hearings Before a Subcomm.

of the House Comm. on Gov't Operations, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 45 (1970).
32. Id. at 47.

[2: 255264



The EPA Programs

vironmental legislation have been enacted,33 however, and the
problems caused by fragmentation of pollution control still exist.
The various statutes under which the EPA operates were enacted
at different times, each designed to remedy a single and separate
category of environmental damage. Each of them significantly af-
fects the way land is used, although none by itself provides the
means to coordinate implementation and intermedia impacts with
other environmental standards and policies for which the EPA is
responsible.

Environmental problems tend to be interrelated with one
another through a complex network of ecological connections. It is
difficult to find a simple solution to any single environmental prob-
lem without threatening new problems in another media. Nowhere
is the complex network of interrelationships more apparent than in
an examination of the land use impacts of various EPA programs.
In any analysis of environmental problems there are many in-
stances in which the interrelation of the problem and the solution
becomes the dominant factor. Addressing these interrelationships
can provide an avenue for the EPA to integrate the functions and
activities of its programs.

A. Air Quality Programs

To understand the impact of the Clean Air Act of 1970, (Clean
Air Act)3 4 on land use, one must first be aware of two key sections
of the Act: section 109,as which directs the EPA to establish "am-
bient" (atmospheric) air quality standards for widespread air pollu-
tants; and section 110,36 which requires regulatory programs to
achieve and maintain these ambient standards. Once an ambient
standard is set, the Act in effect decrees that no portion of the
United States' atmosphere should contain pollutant concentrations
in excess of that standard.3 7

33. See notes 12-18 and accompanying text supra.
34. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1857-58a (1970). Except for amendments not relevant here, the

Clean Air Act's basic structure derives from Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 (1970).
Citations hereinafter will be to sections as enumerated in the Act's Public Law form.

35. 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-4 (1970).
36. 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5 (1970).
37. 40 C.F.R. Part 50 (1975) contains the ambient standards. Standards have been

promulgated for six pollutants: sulfur dioxide, particulates, carbon monoxide, nitro-

gen dioxide, hydrocarbons and photochemical oxidants. Section 109 requires the es-

tablishment of "primary" standards at such level as to protect the public health with

an adequate margin of safety, § 109(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-4(b)(1) (1970), and "sec-

2651976]



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

The legal mechanism for achieving and maintaining the ambient
standards is the "state implementation plan" (SIP) required by sec-
tion 110.38 A SIP is basically a combination of laws and regulations
designed to insure attainment and maintenance of each ambient
standard. States are given the opportunity to develop their own
requirements under section 110, but whenever a state's own mea-
sures are insufficient, the EPA is required to fill in the gap with its
own regulations.39

One basic means of achieving ambient standards is to control air
pollution emissions from sources of air pollution. For instance, by
limiting a power plant to x pounds per hour of sulfur dioxide emis-
sions and a neighboring chemical plant to y pounds per hour, the
ambient standard for sulfur dioxide may be met. The quality of the
ambient air at any given point, however, is determined not only by
the degree to which sources' emissions are controlled; it is also
highly dependent upon the number of sources in the area. Thus, if
a new power plant were to locate between the old power plant and
the chemical plant mentioned above, the ambient sulfur dioxide
levels in the area could worsen, perhaps even to the point of violat-
ing the national standards.

The crucial point is this: no matter how well pollution sources'
emissions are controlled (unless they are controlled to zero),40 the
ambient standards may be violated if too many sources are located
in the same area. Thus the Act, by demanding that ambient stan-

ondary" standards at such level as to protect the public welfare (effect on crops,

materials, personal comfort and well-being), §§ 109(b)(2), 302(h), 42 U.S.C. §§
1857c-4(b)(2), 1857h-2(h) (1970). See Kennecott Copper Corp. v. EPA, 462 F.2d 846
(D.C. Cir. 1972).

38. Primary (health-related) standards are to be achieved "as expeditiously as

practicable," but in no event later than three years after plan approval by the EPA.

§ 110(a)(2)(A)(i), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5(a)(2)(A)(i) (1970). Secondary (welfare-related)
standards are to be achieved within a "reasonable time." § 110(a)(2)(A)(ii), 42 U.S.C.

§ 1857c-5(a)(2)(A)(ii) (1970). For a discussion of the state implementation plan
mechanism, see Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60 (1975).

39. Clean Air Act § 110(c), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5(c) (1970). All EPA approval/
disapproval actions regarding SIP's are codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 52 (1975). There is
a separate subpart in Part 52 for each state and territory. For a recent discussion of

Part 52's organization, see 41 Fed. Reg. 8956 (1976).
40. "Zero" pollution from major industrial sources is, for the most part, unfortu-

nately beyond reality at this time. The Clean Air Act is inherently "technology-forc-

ing," however. See Bonine, The Evolution of "Technology-Forcing" in the Clean Air
Act, 6 BNA ENvmR. RPTR. Monograph No. 21 (1975). The impact of the Clean Air Act

on land use will vary inversely with industry's success at developing better pollution

control technology.

266 [2: 255



The EPA Programs

dards be met everywhere, necessarily demands land use controls.
This is made explicit in section 110(a)(2)(B),41 which requires that
SIP's contain "emission limitations . . . and such other measures as

may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance of such
[ambient] standard, including, but not limited to, land-use and
transportation controls."42

Most land use controls now present in SIP's involve preconstruc-
tion review of new air pollution sources. These programs, de-
scribed below, are in effect land use permit requirements. Consis-
tent with the Act's policy of placing primary air pollution control
responsibility with state and local governments,43 it is the EPA's
policy to encourage state and local governments to develop and
implement their own land use-related programs under the Act.
Only where states have failed to do so has the EPA stepped in, as
required by section 110(c)4 4 of the Act.

Preconstruction review programs cover two basic types of air pol-
lution sources: (1) stationary sources, which directly emit air
pollutants-for example, power plants and steel mills; and (2) indi-
rect sources, which do not themselves emit air pollutants, but
which attract autos in sufficient numbers so as to have the potential
for creating excess concentrations of auto-related pollutants-for
example, shopping centers, parking garages and highways.

1. Preconstruction Review of Stationary Sources. SIP's now
have provisions for two types of preconstruction review for station-
ary sources. The purpose of one is to assure that a new source will
not cause a violation of the ambient standards; the purpose of the
other is to assure that the new source will not cause significant
deterioration of air quality.

The Act explicitly requires all SIP's to contain a procedure to
prohibit the construction of new major air pollution sources wher-
ever such a source would "prevent the attainment or maintenance"
of the ambient standards.4 5 The EPA's regulations, in recognition

41. 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5(a)(2)(B) (1970).
42. (Emphasis added). The Clean Air Act's legislative history also clearly reveals

a congressional intent to require land use controls. See, e.g., S. REP. No. 91-1196,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. 2, 12-13 (1970).

43. Clean Air Act §§ 101(a)(3), 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1857(a)(3), 1857c-2(a) (1970).
44. 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5 (1970).
45. Clean Air Act H§ 110(a)(2)(D), 110(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1857c-5(a)(2)(D),

1857c-5(a)(4) (1970). See generally Sierra Club v. Drain, 7 ERC 2030 (D. Neb. 1975);
Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co., 395 F.

1976] 267



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

of the potential social, economic and land use impact of this type of
permit program, require each state to publicly announce in ad-
vance its proposed permit approvals or disapprovals, and to provide
opportunity for public comment prior to finalization.4 6 At present,
all but six states have fully-approved SIP procedures of their own
in this area.4 7

The courts have construed the Act to require SIP's to ensure that
wherever existing air quality is better than the ambient standards,
"significant deterioration" from that existing air quality will not
occur.4 8 For example, assume the ambient air standard for a pol-
lutant is 100x and that existing air quality in a region is 30x. Prior
to the court decisions on significant deterioration, the EPA had
interpreted the Act to allow construction of new pollution sources
in that region until the air quality reached 100x. As interpreted by the
courts, however, the Act demands that new sources cannot create
significant deterioration from the existing 30x level. The land use
implications of such an interpretation are readily apparent.

In response to a court order,49 the EPA promulgated "preven-
tion of significant deterioration" (PSD) regulations into all SIP's in
1974.50 These regulations are now being implemented by the EPA,
but the Agency's policy is to encourage states to implement and
enforce the PSD program.5' In essence, these regulations provide
an additional permit constraint on the construction of new sta-
tionary sources: it must be shown not only that the source will not
violate the ambient standards, but also that it will not violate the
applicable PSD "increment" for the area in which it seeks to lo-
cate.

Supp. 313 (W.D. Wis. 1975); New Mexico Citizens v. Train, 6 ERC 2061 (D. N.M.
1974) (these cases all involve alleged state failures to conduct preconstruction review
properly).

46. 40 C.F.R. § 51.18(h) (1975).
47. The EPA is conducting ambient permit reviews in California, Nevada,

Arizona, Indiana, Michigan and Utah. See 40 Fed. Reg. 50267 (1975); 41 Fed. Reg.
7508 (1976).

48. Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 344 F. Supp. 253 (D. D.C.), aff'd 4 ERC 1815
(D.C. Cir. 1972), aff'd per curiam by an equally divided Court sub nom. Fri v.
Sierra Club, 412 U.S. 541 (1973); NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.2d 390, 408 (5th Cir. 1974);
cf. City of Highland Park v. Train, 519 F.2d 681, 685-86 (7th Cir. 1975).

49. Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 344 F. Supp. 253 (D. D.C.), aff'd 4 ERC 1815
(D.C. Cir. 1972), aff'd per curiam by an equally divided Court sub nom. Fri v.
Sierra Club, 412 U.S. 541 (1973).

50. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21 (1975); 39 Fed. Reg. 42510 (1974), amended, 40 Fed. Reg.
25004 (1975), and 40 Fed. Reg. 42012 (1975).

51. See preamble materials accompanying regulations cited at note 50 supra.

[2: 255268



The EPA Programs

The process by which PSD "increments" are assigned to an area
is itself a significant land use measure. States are to designate their
land according to three basic classes: "Class I" applies to areas in
which practically any change in air quality would be considered
significant, and therefore very little growth in new polluting
sources would be allowed; "Class II" applies to areas in which de-
terioration normally accompanying moderate growth would be con-
sidered insignificant; "Class III" applies to those areas in which
deterioration up to the ambient standard would be considered
insignificant. 52

The PSD regulation provides for allowable "increments" in air
quality for new sources, based upon which of the above described
"Classes" the source seeks to locate within. For example, assume
Class I allows a 5x increase in ambient concentrations of a pollut-
ant and Class II allows a 15x increase. If a new power plant which
would add 10x pollution to the atmosphere sought to locate in an
area, the PSD classification of the area would be crucial. If the area
were Class II, the plant would meet the PSD increment require-
ments, and (assuming it met all other legal requirements) it could
be built. If the area were Class I, however, the plant could not
legally be built.

2. Preconstruction Review of Indirect Sources. In response to
another court order,53 the EPA issued guidelines in 197354 requir-
ing that SIP's provide for preconstruction review of indirect as well
as stationary sources. Under this type of permit program, the con-
struction of a shopping center or highway could be prevented if
such a source were found to cause violations of the ambient
standard.55 For instance, assume the ambient standard for carbon

52. 39 Fed. Reg. 42510 (1974).
53. Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 475 F.2d 968, 971-72 para. 9

(D.C. Cir. 1973). The order did not specifically mention "indirect sources," but it did
direct the EPA to correct SIP's for maintenance. The "indirect source" concept was
the EPA's response. See 39 Fed. Reg. 7270-85 (1974). See also District of Columbia
v. Train, 521 F.2d 971, 989 (D.C. Cir. 1975); South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, 504 F.2d
646, 667-71 (1st Cir. 1974); City of Highland Park v. Train, 519 F.2d 681, 686-87 (7th
Cir. 1975); Plan for Arcadia v. Anita Associates, 501 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1974); Citi-
zens Ass'n of Georgetown v. Washington, 370 F. Supp. 1101 (D. D.C. 1974); Pinkney
v. Ohio EPA, 375 F. Supp. 305 (N.D. Ohio 1974); and Wuillamey v. Werblin, 364 F.
Supp. 237 (D. N.J. 1973).

54. 40 C.F.R. § 51.18 (1975); 38 Fed. Reg. 15834 (1973).
55. Other possible "indirect" sources are churches, hospitals, stock car race grounds

and any other facilities with sufficient parking spaces. See 40 C.F.R. § 52.22(b)
(1975); 39 Fed. Reg. 7270 (1974).

1976] 269



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

monoxide (CO) is 9x, and existing CO air quality in an area is 6x.
If a new shopping center were proposed in the area which would
attract autos in such concentrations as to add to the CO levels by
4x, its construction would be prevented.56 Again, the land use im-
plications are evident.

Because of the rapid time-frame of the court order, most states
were initially unable to develop acceptable SIP regulations for indi-
rect sources.57 The EPA was therefore forced to promulgate its
own regulations for 52 of the 55 states and territories.58 The EPA's
regulations in this area, as in the case of stationary source review,
have stressed the need for public involvement in the decision-
making process and the benefits of state and local (rather than fed-
eral) implementation and enforcement.59

Although the EPA has indefinitely suspended its own regu-
lationS60 because of congressional directives and pending legisla-
tion which could substantially modify indirect source require-
ments,61 many states are continuing to adopt and enforce their own
regulations. 62

3. Maintenance of Ambient Standards. In addition to the pre-
construction review requirements described above, one other EPA

56. It may often be the case that a proposed indirect source can avoid permit
denial by undergoing design changes in order to alleviate congestion problems.
(Congestion is directly related to high carbon monoxide levels.) See 39 Fed. Reg.
7275 (1974); 39 Fed. Reg. 25292 (1974).

57. Only Alabama, Florida and Guam had submitted approvable regulations by
the court-ordered deadline. 39 Fed. Reg. 7271 (1974).

58. 40 C.F.R. § 52.22(b) (1975); 39 Fed. Reg. 7270 (1974), amended, 39 Fed. Reg.
25292 (1974), delayed, 39 Fed. Reg. 45014 (1974), indefinitely suspended, 40 Fed.
Reg. 28064 (1975).

59. 40 C.F.R. § 52.22(b)(8) (1975). See also 39 Fed. Reg. 7270 (1974).
60. See note 50 supra.
61. Section 510 of the Agriculture-Environmental and Consumer Protection Ap-

propriation Act, 1975, Pub. L. No. 93-563, § 510, 88 Stat. 1822, provides that:
No part of any funds appropriated under this Act may be used by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to administer any program to tax, limit, or otherwise
regulate parking facilities.

For similar language, see the Department of Housing and Urban Development
-Independent Agencies Appropriation Act, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-116, § 407, 89 Stat.
581.

62. Since early 1974, the EPA has approved indirect source regulations for North
Carolina, 39 Fed. Reg. 28879 (1974); Washington, 39 Fed. Reg. 40855 (1974); Idaho,
40 Fed. Reg. 4420 (1975); Nevada, 40 Fed. Reg. 13306 (1975); New York, 40 Fed.
Reg. 42542 (1975); Nebraska, 40 Fed. Reg. 41778 (1975); Virgin Islands, 40 Fed. Reg.
42012 (1975); West Virginia, 40 Fed. Reg. 52374 (1975); Connecticut, 41 Fed. Reg.
6765 (1976); and Oregon, 41 Fed. Reg. 8058 (1976).

270 [2: 255



The EPA Programs

program under the Clean Air Act has significant land use implica-
tions. This is the EPA's ongoing program to insure, as specifically
required by the Act, 63 that all SIP's are adequate for maintenance
of the ambient standards once they are attained.

It should be readily apparent from the foregoing discussion that
for one to ensure maintenance of the ambient standards for any
period into the future, one must ensure that growth of industry and
motor vehicle use occurs in a manner compatible with those stan-
dards. Since it is impractical to provide for preconstruction review
of every stationary and indirect source, some additional mechanism
needs to be developed by states to fill in the gaps. The EPA has
provided detailed guidance to the states on preparing SIP revisions
to accomplish this by May 3, 1976.64

Because of the nature of the ambient standard concept, states
may have to implement additional land use controls to ensure
maintenance. A state or locality may, for example, choose to zone
portions of its land according to maximum allowable emission
density rates. Or a local government may designate certain areas as
unavailable to any major pollution sources.

The EPA's role in this "maintenance" process will be limited, to
the maximum extent possible under the Act, to assisting the states
in detecting areas in which further measures are needed and pro-
viding technical assistance in the development of those measures.65

The EPA has completed the process of identifying areas which may
need additional measures,6 6 and has issued numerous guidance
documentS67 to the states on ways they may wish to assure mainte-
nance of the ambient standards. Since maintenance plan revisions

63. E.g., Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-5(a)(2)(B) (1970). The
legislative history of the Act states: "In areas where current air pollution levels are
already equal to, or better than, the air quality goals [the EPA] should not approve
any implementation plan which does not provide, to the maximum extent practica-
ble, for the continued maintenance of such air quality." S. REP. No. 91-1196, 91st

Cong., 2d Sess. 11 (1970).
64. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.12(e)-(h) (1975); 39 Fed. Reg. 15834 (1973). For amend-

ments to these requirements and a detailed discussion of the entire "maintenance"

program, see 40 Fed. Reg. 49048 (1975), and 41 Fed. Reg. 18382 (1976). These dis-
cussions make reference to the 13 volumes of guidelines on air quality maintenance

planning which have been published by the EPA.
65. 40 Fed. Reg. 49048 (1975), and 41 Fed. Reg. 18382 (1976).
66. These areas are known as "Air Quality Maintenance Areas" and are identified

at 40 Fed. Reg. 18726 (1975); 40 Fed. Reg. 23746 (1975); and 40 Fed. Reg. 41942
(1975).

67. See note 64 supra.

1976] 271



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

will not be developed by the states for some time, and since the
choice of control measures will be made by the states (and local
governments), it is impossible to assess the real land use implica-
tions of this program at the present time.

B. Water Quality Programs

With the increased awareness and demand for protection of the
environment in the decade of the 1960's, several water quality im-
provement laws were enacted68 culminating in the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA Amend-
ments).6 9 This Act replaced previous water pollution laws and pro-
vided a more comprehensive program for water pollution control
and abatement.

The FWPCA Amendments call for the EPA to address the prob-
lem of water pollution by requiring the states to develop water
quality standards."o Limitations on permissible effluents which may
be discharged into the nation's waters are to be developed by the
EPA.71 States are to strive to achieve the standards and limitations
by devising plans and programs for administering and enforcing the
water quality and effluent standards.72 If they fail to do so, the
EPA must undertake enforcement measures.73

The 1972 Amendments also provided for a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).7 4 All point sources75 dis-
charging pollutants into navigable waters are required to have a
permit issued either by a state under an EPA-approved NPDES
program or by the EPA in those states which have no such

68. Act of July 20, 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-88, 75 Stat. 204; Water Quality Act of
1965, Pub. L. No. 89-234, 79 Stat. 903; Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, Pub. L.
No. 89-753, 80 Stat. 1246; Act of April 3, 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-224, 84 Stat. 91.

69. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1376 (Supp. III, 1973).
70. FWPCA Amendments § 303, 33 U.S.C. § 1313 (Supp. III, 1973).
71. FWPCA Amendments § 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311 (Supp. III, 1973).
72. FWPCA Amendments § 303, 33 U.S.C. § 1313 (Supp. III, 1973).
73. FWPCA Amendments § 309, 33 U.S.C. § 1319 (Supp. III, 1973).
74. FWPCA Amendments § 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (Supp. III, 1973).
75. The term "Point source" means any discernible, confined and discrete con-
veyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, con-

duit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding
operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be
discharged.

FWPCA Amendments, § 502(14), 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14) (Supp. III, 1973).

272 [2: 255



The EPA Programs

program.7 6 Permittees must be found in compliance with all appli-
cable standards.

Another area of considerable potential impact is the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act,77 which requires the Agency to assure that any
federally-assisted project within a sole source aquifer recharge
zone 7  be carried out so as not to contaminate the drinking water
source. 7 Although the EPA's approach to administering the aquifer
protection section of the Safe Drinking Water Act has not yet been
finalized, the land use implications are considerable since the na-
ture and intensity of land uses in an aquifer recharge zone ulti-
mately determine the quality of the water runoff from land surfaces
which finds its way into the aquifer.

At the present time, however, the two programs most closely
related to land use questions are the waste treatment facilities pro-
gram under section 20180 and the areawide waste treatment man-
agement planning requirements under section 20881 of the FWPCA
Amendments.

1. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Construction. The section
201 facilities construction grants program, by providing sewage
capacity to existing and future residential areas, will to a large ex-
tent determine the pace and intensity of growth in these areas. Of
particular relevance to local land use concerns are the siting and
sizing of sewage treatment facilities. Located in presently ur-
banized areas, which may coincidentally contain the main sources
of pollution, they fulfill their primary mission of abating public
health hazards. But sewage treatment plants are not always the
most welcome neighbors, and finding desirable and acceptable lo-
cations is often difficult. The nature of this layout can govern the
type, extent and staging of development in any given locality. This
potential influence on land use patterns suggests that sewer sys-
tems may be the new underground highways. Thus, when sewer

76. FWPCA Amendments § 402(a), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(a), (b) (Supp. III, 1973).
77. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f to j (Supp. IV, 1974).
78. Aquifers are natural reservoirs for groundwater, serve as natural filters for

groundwater, and are interconnected with surface water systems in lakes, streams
and wetlands. Pollution of surface waters and seepage of leachate from land uses
within the aquifer recharge zone can cause contamination of the groundwater within
the aquifer. For further information on aquifers and the Safe Drinking Water Act, see
40 Fed. Reg. 58354 (1975).

79. Safe Drinking Water Act § 2(a), 42 U.S.C. § 300j-6 (Supp. IV, 1974).
80. 33 U.S.C. § 1281 (Supp. III, 1973).
81. 33 U.S.C. § 1288 (Supp. III, 1973).

1976] 273



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

treatment planning is addressed solely to the primary objective of
abating public health hazards, it may also provoke unanticipated
and undesired community growth and exacerbate other existing
pollution problems.

The fact that many sewage treatment plant sites have already
been selected, planned and constructed under the section 201 con-
struction grants program without the benefit of the areawide sec-
tion 208 perspective may be injurious, but not necessarily fatal to
"good" planning. Nevertheless, this is a situation which the EPA
and local officials must address promptly and judiciously, lest the
wall-to-wall statewide section 208 plans called for in a recent court
decision8 2 become merely unimplemented wall-to-wall plans.

2. Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans. An areawide
waste treatment management planning process and plan for areas
with serious water pollution control problems anticipates municipal
and industrial waste treatment needs, establishes construction
priorities, regulates the location, modification and construction of
any waste treatment facility in the area, and enforces procedures
and methods to control various nonpoint sources of pollution.8 3

These section 208 areawide waste management plans will influence
overall residential patterns by deciding which areas are to be ser-

viced by public facilities and by prescribing alternative methods of

maintaining water quality in the regions.
Once an areawide plan is approved, permits under the NPDES

system cannot be issued for point sources which are in conflict with
the plan.84 Similarly, when the plan has been approved, the EPA
cannot make grants for construction of municipal treatment works
unless such works are included in the areawide plan.8 5 Prior to
EPA approval, the primary sanction available to the EPA is the
withholding of further planning assistance funds.

The importance of section 208 and the intention that it encom-
pass the coordination of land use matters with environmental con-
trol is evidenced by the report of the Senate Committee on Public
Works accompanying the bill originally passed by the Senate,
which was substantially in the form finally enacted:

82. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train, 396 F. Supp. 1386 (D.D.C.
1975), appeal pending, D.C. Cir.,.No. 75-1873.

83. FWPCA Amendments § 208(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1288(b) (Supp. III, 1973).
84. FWPCA Amendments § 208(e), 33 U.S.C. § 1288(e) (Supp. III, 1973).
85. FWPCA Amendments § 208(d), 33 U.S.C. § 1288(d) (Supp. III, 1973).

274 [2: 255



The EPA Programs

Perhaps the principal cause of inefficiency and poor performance
in the management of waste in the metropolitan regions is the
incoherent and uncoordinated planning and management that
prevails in many areas of the Nation. Adjacent communities and
industries are under no mandate to coordinate land use or water
quality planning activities. This results in poor overall perfor-
mance and the proliferation of many direct and indirect dis-
charge sources into receiving waters. Such diffuse and divergent
programs not only intensify pollution problems but they prevent
the use of economies of scale, efficiency of treatment methods,
and, most importantly, coherent, integrated and comprehensive
land use management.

Consequently, the Committee has included in the bill a
mechanism that would establish planning and management capa-
bility throughout each State. The mechanism is initiated by the
Administrator who would set forth definitive criteria on those
interstate and intrastate areas for which regional waste treatment
management plans are to be developed . . .. A regional planning
mechanism will be ineffective if it does not provide an effective
means of regulating all sources of pollutants within the region,
and if it does not provide an overall management mechanism to
assure implementation of any plan development.

Uncontrolled growth and expansion and competition among units
of government will be reduced if effective environmental con-
trols are to be imposed.86

Potentially the most far-reaching provision in section 208 is that
requiring any areawide plan to include a program "to regulate the
location, modification and construction of any facilities within such
area which may result in any discharge in such area."8 7 This phrase
might be interpreted to refer to regulation of the patterns and in-
tensity of buildings, such as homes or commercial buildings, which
contribute to the discharge of wastes into navigable waters.

Impacts of these programs on land use also are felt from the
requirement that plans be developed to improve water quality. As
is implicitly recognized in section 208, if basin plans do not take
land use into consideration, it is difficult to effectively implement a
strategy to achieve and maintain water quality standards approved
by the EPA.

86. S. REP. No. 92-414, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 36-37 (1971).
87. FWPCA Amendments § 208(b)(2)(C)(ii), 33 U.S.C. § 1288(b)(2)(c)(ii) (Supp. III,

1973).

2751976]



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Although section 303(e)88 does not contain the same kind of lan-
guage found in section 110 of the Clean Air Act,89 which specifically
authorizes the inclusion of land use controls in state implementa-
tion plans, it is apparent that land use controls can and should be
an element in section 303(e) plans. Without the ability to plan and
control where point and nonpoint sources of pollution will be per-
mitted to operate and where land sites for disposal of pollutants
will be located, achievement of the objectives of the 1972 FWPCA
Amendments may be impossible. The report of the House Com-
mittee on Public Works in at least two places emphasizes the need
to consider land disposal as one of the techniques for dealing with
pollution.90 In discussing section 201 construction grants, the re-
port states:

In arriving at the best practicable waste treatment technology
consideration must be given to its full environmental impact on
water, land, and air and not simply to the impact on water qual-
ity . . ..

In defining "best practicable waste treatment technology" for a
given case, consideration must be given to new or improved
treatment techniques which have been developed and are now
considered to be ready for full-scale application. These include
land disposal . 91

Again, in discussing the provisions of section 30492 relating to al-
ternative techniques for implementing the section 30193 effluent
limitations, the House Committee repeats the importance of land
disposal techniques:

The Committee intends that the Administrator shall emphasize
land disposal techniques. If the goal of eliminating the discharge
of pollutants into our Nation's waters is to be achieved, land dis-
posal of the waste from treatment works will be necessary.94

88. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(e) (Supp. III, 1973). Section 303(e) requires a statewide as-
sessment of water quality problems and their causes, a listing of geographical
priorities for these problems, and a description of the state's approach to water qual-
ity problems, including those originating from non-point sources. These require-
ments are all premised on the availability of accurate land use information and land

use controls.
89. See notes 41-42 and accompanying text supra.
90. H. R. REP. No. 92-911, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972).
91. Id. at 87.
92. 33 U.S.C. § 1314 (Supp. III, 1973).
93. 33 U.S.C. § 1311 (Supp. III, 1973).
94. H. R. REP. No. 92-911, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 108 (1972).

276 [2: 255



The EPA Programs

Control simply over technology employed at point sources or
over methods of operation utilized by operators of nonpoint sources
is not sufficient to enable the EPA to "emphasize" land disposal
techniques. Such a limited approach also does not permit the EPA
any control over the proximity of various sources to one another, a
key element in the spatial distribution pattern of pollutants.

C. Solid Waste Management Programs

In 1965, Congress enacted the Solid Waste Disposal Act,9 5

which was later amended by the Resource Recovery Act of 1970.96
Under the latter's provisions, the EPA is authorized to make plan-
ning grants to state and local agencies enabling them to make sur-
veys of solid waste disposal practices and problems, develop solid
waste disposal plans, and make studies of the effect of solid waste
disposal practices on adjoining areas.97 Applicants for such grants
must assure that full consideration will be given to all aspects of
planning essential to areawide implementation of effective solid
waste disposal systems. Such factors as population growth, urban
and metropolitan development, land use planning, air and water
pollution control, and the feasibility of regional disposal and recy-
cling systems must be considered.98

Solid waste disposal is currently, and for the predictable future
will continue to be, land intensive. The principal method currently
in use in the United States for disposal of municipal and industrial
solid waste is open dumping. Usually, open dumps occupy sites for
which competing land uses were not apparent, such as abandoned
gravel pits, marshes and swamplands; most of these low cost sites
are conducive to environmental degradation. Most new disposal
facilities now and for the predictable future will be sanitary land-
fills. The site characteristics of sanitary landfills are such, however,
that acquisition by default is no longer possible.

Patterns of land use and the mechanics of land ownership are
inimical to the local operation of the site acquisition process. Land
is a finite, spatially fixed resource. In areas of intensive land use
new parcels -cannot be introduced to fulfill new requirements.
Therefore, the economic efficiency criterion applies, and those uses

95. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3251-59 (Supp. I, 1965), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3251-59
(1970).

96. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3251-59 (1970), amending 42 U.S.C. §§ 3251-59 (Supp. I, 1965).
97. Resource Recovery Act § 207, 42 U.S.C. § 3254a (1970).
98. Resource Recovery Act § 207(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 3254a(b)(2) (1970).

1976] 277



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

which are the most economically, socially and politically feasible
are allocated the scarce land resources.

The apparent environmental threat from land disposal of solid
waste, particularly ground and surface water pollution, dictates that
extreme care be taken in site selection. Man-made devices to con-
trol pollutant emissions at landfills are as yet unproven in practice,
and will need to be operated for many years beyond the life of the
landfill, a period in which responsibility for this operation becomes
uncertain. In view of these uncertainties, a program strategy em-
phasizing nonstructural control, such as land management for solid
waste objectives, should be strongly favored over one emphasizing
technological and structural discharge controls.

D. Noise Control Programs

The Noise Control Act of 197299 requires the EPA to develop
criteria concerning the effects of noise on the public health or wel-
fare and to report on available noise control techniques. Addition-
ally, industries emitting high noise levels are to be identified, lead-
ing to the promulgation of guidelines to aid in locating these
industries.'00 These guidelines might include such techniques as
the establishment of buffer zones or minimum acreage require-
ments to reduce the effects of noise on surrounding devel-
opment.01

The authority of the EPA under section 5 of the Noise Control
Act 102 is merely advisory, for no power is given to the Agency to
require states to adopt and enforce the published criteria or to
preempt state noise regulations. However, states may adopt and
enforce the criteria developed by the EPA or other similar criteria,
as Illinois has done.0 3 Such an approach is suggested in the Senate
Public Works and House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Com-
mittee Reports which dealt with the Noise Act:

[S]tates and local governments have the primary responsibility
under the bill for setting and enforcing limits on environmental

99. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4901-18 (Supp. III, 1973).
100. Noise Control Act § 5, 42 U.S.C. § 4904 (Supp. III, 1973).
101. See National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, Model Community Noise

Control Ordinances, September, 1975 (prepared in conjunction with the EPA) (EPA
Report No. 550/9-76-003).

102. 42 U.S.C. § 4904 (Supp. III, 1973).
103. Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, 4 BNA ENvIR. RPTR. 596 (July

26, 1973).

278 [2: 255



The EPA Programs

noise which in their view are necessary to protect the public
health and welfare. This essentially local responsibility is not as-
sumed or interfered with by this bill, although Federal leader-
ship and technical assistance are provided in the criteria re-
quired by §407(a) which will set forth levels of environmental
noise protective of public health and welfare.'0 4

With respect to aircraft noise, the legislative history indicates
that initial versions of the Noise Act did not contemplate giving the
EPA authority to control noise around airports by controlling land
use. The final version, however, authorizes the EPA to propose
regulations "as EPA determines is necessary to protect the public
health and welfare."'0 5 No specific reference is made to land use
regulations, but the legislative history indicates that the EPA's reg-
ulations can encompass more than technological noise reduction
requirements.

III. LAND USE PLANNING AND THE PROTECTION OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

It seems reasonable to hypothesize that no form of land use
planning and control can satisfy all competing demands for land.
There are divergent interests, some of which inevitably get less
than they desire. While these competing demands seek satisfaction
through private market mechanisms, we cannot fail to recognize
that public land use planning and controls are integral requisites of
that process. Indeed, if the existence and operation of such public
processes yielded a result no different than what the uninhibited
private market would produce, there would be no purpose in hav-
ing them. The realization of this relationship places a special em-
phasis on careful formulation of goals and objectives in land use
planning as a basis for formulating land use controls.

While land use controls are ultimately exercised at the state and
local level, in land use planning there are appropriate roles for all
levels of government. All of the national land use proposals10 6 have
left many aspects of land use planning in the hands of local gov-
ernment, but they also have provided for a greater degree of state
and federal involvement. The real issue lies in trying to draw ap-
propriate lines between activities most suitable to government at

104. S. REP. No. 92-1160, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (1972).
105. Noise Control Act § 7(b), 49 U.S.C. § 1431(c)(1) (Supp. III, 1973).
106. See note 6 supra.

1976] 279



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

each level. The gradual evolution of environmental management
roles to state and local governments will mean greater reliance on
sensitive and comprehensive land use plans for effectively protect-
ing the environment. At the same time, it places more pressure on
federal agencies to clarify their land use program objectives and
resolve conflicts prior to state and local implementation.

A. Current Shortcomings in Land Use Planning

Over the years, land related problems resulting from urban
growth and industrial expansion have been addressed through the
planning process. Yet, land use planning has frequently been inef-
fective in preventing land misuse or in protecting environmental
quality. These shortcomings stem primarily from (1) inadequate
consideration of the natural environment in the planning, (2) a fail-
ure to take a comprehensive approach, and (3) inadequate imple-
mentation of land use plans. 107

Traditional land use planning has been oriented to a zoning ap-
proach. Various urban uses-residential, industrial and com-
mercial-are isolated from each other to reduce nuisances and to
protect human health, safety and welfare. Although there are ex-
amples of planning decisions being based on environmental
criteria, for the most part protection of environmental quality and
finite resources has not been fundamental to the planning process.
Ignoring these physical and ecological factors has resulted in prop-
erty damage and destruction of environmental quality.

A second shortcoming of most planning processes is their
single-purpose orientation. The object of planning such projects as
highways, sewers, airports and water supply systems is primarily to
get the job done for that single purpose. Highways, for example,
are planned to facilitate movement from urban center to urban
center. Ample consideration is not always given to the dislocation
of people, the disruption of the natural environment, and the
stimulus to secondary development.

A third basic limitation in the current land use planning process
is the absence of adequate implementation of plans. Frequently,
local communities have considered it necessary to up-zone, grant
exceptions and yield to outside pressures to alter well-intended
plans. Such plans have often failed to provide specific implement-

107. See National Youth Advisory Board, Land Use and Environmental Protec-
tion, 1973 (a report to the EPA).

280 [2: 255



The EPA Programs

ing mechanisms (e.g., legislation, procedures, incentives) or build
the bridges to the legislative, regulatory, budgetary or resource al-
location functions in various governing bodies.

B. The EPA's Role in Program Coordination

While the EPA itself has no explicit mandate for direct land use
control, many provisions in its various enabling statutes require
land use planning and control for their successful imple-
mentation.10 A more active response to land use issues has been
limited by the absence of specific organic legislation establishing
the EPA. This factor has limited the Agency's efforts to expli-
citly address land use considerations in its program activities.
Furthermore, the enabling legislation antedates the Agency, falls
within the jurisdiction of several committees of the Congress, and
is generally single-media in nature. With the exception of NEPA,
these authorizations stress a media rather than an intermedia ap-
proach to pollution abatement.

Independent program responsibility for air, water, solid waste
management, pesticides, radiation and noise control now exist. The
activities of each program office are based on a specific enabling
authority, and the program offices confine their authority to the
enabling legislation. A similar pattern has evolved at the state and
local level. Yet air, water and land are interdependent parts of the
ecosystem, and any effort to protect and enhance the environment
requires equal attention to all three parts and places a premium on
coordination among them. Indeed, a small land use coordination
function was established in my immediate office to serve just such
a purpose.0 9

Pursuant to the EPA's programs, many states and their subdivi-
sions are promulgating plans and undertaking enforcement
strategies which have or will have a major impact on the use of
land. In many cases, however, these plans are designed to achieve
only a single environmental goal rather than the combined

108. Implicit requirements for land use planning are contained in the following:

FWPCA Amendments §§ 104, 105, 107, 201, 204, 208, 209, 303, 305, 314, 403, 404,
405, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1255, 1257, 1281, 1284, 1288, 1289, 1313, 1315, 1324, 1343, 1344,
1345, (Supp. III, 1973); Clean Air Act §§ 110, 309, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1857c-5, 1857h-7
(1970); Resource Recovery Act of 1970 § 207, 42 U.S.C. § 3254a (1970); Noise Con-
trol Act of 1972 §§ 4(c)(1), 5(a)(1), 5(a)(2), 7, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4903(c)(1), 4904(a)(1),
4904(a)(2), 4906 (Supp. III, 1973).

109. See EPA Order No. 1110.18C, CHGE 1 (August 16, 1974).

2811976]



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

achievement of all environmental goals. In order to prevent conflict
and avoid duplication among environmental programs, state, re-
gional and local systems for controlling development must be coor-
dinated with the relevant federal mandates in a manner which best
achieves the national environmental goals.

This conclusion has been reached in a number of recent studies
commissioned by the Agency, which stress not only the necessity
for greater intermedia coordination, but also for devising specific
mechanisms to resolve conflicts."x0

The Agency is becoming increasingly aware of these concerns in
its own and other land use control programs. A recent EPA senior
management meeting focused on this subject of program
integration."' It was observed that the more the Agency learns
about the interactions of various pollutants and the relationships
between the media through which pollutants are transported, the
more desirable it becomes to address problems through a "sys-
tems" or "intermedia" approach. PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls)
and asbestos fibers associated with the mining of taconite are re-
cent examples of problems that are not restricted to water and air.
The solutions to controlling pollution also cross media boundaries.

110. The University of North Carolina's Center for Urban and Regional Studies
examined methods of implementing environmental goals in local planning and
decision-making. It was concluded that a system for combining isolated methods and
tools into a single coordinated planning process was needed, and that "some form of
intergovernmental framework" was also needed to guide local planning. E. Kaiser et
al., Promoting Environmental Quality Through Urban Planning and Controls, Feb-
ruary, 1974, (EPA Report No. 600/5-73-015).

Argonne National Laboratory, in a report published in March 1972, focused on the
need for the EPA to supplement its role in coordinating federal environmental pro-
grams by encouraging local and state governments to engage in similar coordination.
The report advocated the merging of land use programs and the integration of land
use and environmental factors in transportation and other infrastructure plans. Ar-
gonne National Laboratory, the Relationship Between Land Use and Environmental
Protection, March, 1972.

A similar conclusion was reached in a report by Daniel R. Mandelker and Susan B.
Rothschild. The authors also noted, however, that encouraging greater coordination
among federal, state and local environmental and land use control programs is in-
adequate unless a method for resolving conflicts with federal mandates is provided
as well. D. Mandelker & S. Rothschild, The Role of Land Use Controls in Combat-
ting Air Pollution Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, 1973 (a report to the EPA's Air
Programs Office). The study is reprinted with minor changes in 3 ECOLOGY L.Q. 235
(1973).

111. A meeting of Senior EPA Headquarters and Regional Officials was held on
December 1, 1975, in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of assessing past Agency
progress and developing future environmental goals and objectives.

282 [2: 255



The EPA Programs

The removal of a pollutant from one media can lead to its release
into another media such as air, for example, where incineration is
allowed as a control technique. The meeting concluded that the
Agency should make a major commitment toward program integra-
tion and that a process or guidelines would be developed for this
purpose.

C. Land Use Planning as an Integrative Device

Land use planning, and land as an environmental media may
well provide the key ingredient for program integration. Since pol-
lution is locationally generated and spatially distributed, it is
closely tied to uses of land. Thus, a land use focus should become
more central to Agency missions in the future. This implies an
Agency focus which would:

1. Add a pollution "prevention" to a pollution "abatement" mode
of action through agency wide recognition of long-range environ-
mental problems and prospects, and the development of inter-
mediate and short-range strategies to deal with them (e.g.,
economic incentives).

2. Seek to integrate individual EPA programs in order that they
may be implemented on an intermedia basis. Where appropriate,
land use would be emphasized as the focus for this intermedia ap-
proach to environmental management.

3. Improve the quality of state and local governments to more
effectively implement environmental management programs.

4. Develop and emphasize the EPA's capability for working with
other federal agencies whose actions impact on national/regional
growth and thus on the environment.

5. Orient EPA programs to ensure coverage, accountability and
protection of the full range of environmentally "critical" areas in-
volving interests at national, state and local levels.

Current Agency goals are directed toward achievement of basic
national commitments to environmental cleanup problems common
to much of the country and which have arisen largely from existing
patterns of plant location, equipment utilization, and community
growth and development. As the means for achieving these basic
goals become accepted and routinized, national attention can be
expected to turn to preventive maintenance of the environment,
and to addressing unique regional (sub-national) conditions. These
new orientations will require insights about alternative growth and

1976] 283



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAw

development prospects for the nation, a knowledge of the spatial
land use implications of these alternatives, and, as a result, a better
handle on the new sets of pollution problems and abatement op-
portunities that the EPA may be expected to face. In short, a "land
use-environmental policy" perspective could aid in fine tuning fu-
ture Agency programs to respond to unique regional situations.

IV. CONCLUSION

Having considered the land use implications of current EPA
programs, and the notion of land use as an integrating device for
other environmental media, some important operational questions
arise. Will Agency programs require further legislation in the land
use area? Is it possible to achieve our objectives without new or-
ganic legislation? Must we mandate comprehensiveness, or can we
make progress using an incremental approach?

These questions suggest that there is at least something to be
said for incrementalism, or what one commentator'12 has termed
euphemistically as "muddling through." It is much easier to focus
initially on a single issue-e.g., control of air pollution, protection
of coastal areas, acquisition of recreation areas-and to coalesce var-
ious sectional interests to get necessary support. A moral which
might be suggested from the failure to enact national land use
legislation is: make progress a step at a time. Where dirty water is
the problem, clean it up. Where polluted air is the problem, re-
duce the pollutant level. If energy is running scarce, conserve it.
While these represent only partial attempts at progress or achieve-
ment, pragmatic considerations are not complicated by more com-
prehensive interrelationships and interdependencies.

Yet, this does not dismiss the case for comprehensiveness. Our
ability to make intelligent choices for the future is constrained by
our continued refusal or inability to establish, as a matter of con-
scious government policy, a mechanism for comprehensive long-
range planning. We continue to view planning as synonymous with
government intervention in decisions better left to private
enterprise-as if lack of planning can somehow provide a guaran-
teed future for free enterprise. This strikes me as dangerous think-
ing in today's interdependent world. We clearly need a process,

112. See Lindblom, The Science of "Muddling Through," 19 PUBL. ADMIN. REV.
79 (1959).

284 [2: 255



The EPA Programs

even an imperfect one, for identifying and assessing our choices for
the future.

The really critical issues before this country are not immediate
and isolated, but interrelated and long-range-indeed, the day-to-
day "crises" that seem to capture all our attention and consume all
our energies are simply manifestations of far deeper problems that
we never seem to get around to acknowledging, much less ad-
dressing. The worn cliches that everything relates to everything
else and that we live in an interdependent world has become the
fundamental fact of our economic, social and political life. Our
economic health and growth, our patterns of settlement and physi-
cal development, our social stability and strength-these all de-
termine and depend upon a vast and intricate system of material
(including food), energy and environmental resources. Under these
conditions, we cannot hope to come to grips with the issues before
us unless we strengthen our ability to assess problems and prog-
rams not simply in isolation, but in relation to each other.

It is possible to improvise an incremental approach to com-
prehensiveness. Indeed, some of the necessary ingredients for this
approach seem to be already in place. States, and to some extent
localities, are beginning to approach their problems more com-
prehensively-perhaps as a defense against the plethora of federal
programs and requirements they are required to cope with. Con-
fronted with numerous interconnected and conflicting require-
ments, state governors and their planners and budget officers are
beginning to develop coordinative mechanisms to rationalize what
it is they are supposed to do, what they may do it with, and what
public benefits result from their effort. State environmental impact
statement requirements,1 1 3 more imaginative use of the A-95
clearinghouse process'1 4 and more comprehensive outlooks on

113. For a general discussion of state environmental impact statement require-

ments, see T. Trzyna, Environmental Impacts Requirements in the States: NEPA's

Offspring, April, 1974 (EPA Report No. 600/5-74-005); see also T. Trzyna & A.
Jokela, California Environmental Quality Act: Innovation in State and Local

Decision-Making, October, 1974 (EPA Report No. 600/5-74-023).
114. OMB Circular A-95, promulgated pursuant to section 204 of the Demonstra-

tion Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, 42 U.S.C. § 3334 (1970),
designates agencies with an areawide planning review function on a metropolitan

scale, to comment on member jurisdiction applications for federal funding for a wide

variety of public facility projects. The A-95 clearinghouse process is also in further-

ance of the purposes of Title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968,

42 U.S.C. §§ 4231-33 (1970), which provides that "to the maximum extent possible,
consistent with national objectives, all Federal aid for development purposes shall

1976] 285



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

functional planning requirements are some examples of these
mechanisms.115

Federal agencies might also take a closer look at their planning
assistance programs to determine how they can encourage these
tendencies. The EPA's statewide section 208 planning require-
ments1 1 6 can be viewed as an opportunity in this regard. State plan-
ning agencies should be encouraged through funding and techni-
cal assistance to assume closer coordinating roles among the state
air and water pollution control agencies, among environmental,
economic development and growth management planning func-
tions, and among the different agencies and levels of government.
In turn, the areawide section 208 agencies need to face up to the
realization that when section 208 funding support expires, results
thereafter will depend on the bridges they are currently building to
the funding and implementing authority resting with state govern-
ment. The hoped-for outcome of such efforts might well be the
emergence of comprehensive planning agencies in each state, re-
sponsible to the chief executives and with authority to deal with
various federal programs on a coordinated basis.

Pursuing this incremental approach, it would be necessary for
the federal establishment to put and maintain its own house in
order. The placement of strong and meaningful coordinative
mechanisms within and among the various agencies that impact on
local community growth and development decisions is needed.
Mutually supportive goals need to be solidified, conflicting program
requirements remedied, and use of common planning data, projec-
tions and methodology encouraged. The federal interagency agree-
ments involving coastal zone management, the Housing and Urban
Development section 701 planning assistance program, and the
EPA section 208 programs are good starting points.117 What is now

be consistent with and further the objectives of State, regional, and local comprehen-
sive planning." 42 U.S.C. § 4231(c) (1970).

In addition, some states, for example Connecticut, have extended the review func-
tion of these designated areawide agencies to include comment on development
proposals and zoning changes that occur within a certain distance from municipal
jurisdictional boundaries. This added responsibility is a means of public disclosure
to adjacent municipalities of possible impacts upon their physical facilities and pub-
lic welfare.

115. See The Council of State Governments, Integration and Coordination of
State Environmental Programs, September, 1975 (a report to the EPA).

116. See notes 83-87 and accompanying text supra.
117. These agreements between program offices of different federal agencies

286 [2: 255



1976] The EPA Programs 287

required is specific program guidance and a review process to make
them work.

A concerted effort also seems in order at all levels to articulate,
formulate, manage and coordinate those broader policies concern-
ing the nature of growth in individual communities. As recent
court decisions have indicated,"' local communities are more
likely to be permitted to chart their own destinies if they can dem-
onstrate they have done so in a reasonable and non-arbitrary
fashion. Their ability to do this would be greatly enhanced if the
longer-range policies and program objectives of state and federal
establishments were more deliberately formulated and effectively
communicated. While some judicial decisions may be generally
supportive of orderly growth management, they are usually ren-
dered on an ad hoc basis and should not be regarded as a substi-
tute for responsive long-range thinking and responsible com-
prehensive planning. Recognition of this has caused many local
communities to embark upon or accelerate growth management
plans and controls. It also suggests a closer look at federal programs
and national objectives is needed to discover how they might con-

seek to streamline the flow of program guidance and funding assistance to state and
local governments concerned with land use and environmental protection. They can
be as informal as a "memorandum of understanding" or as formal as an "interagency
agreement." An example of authority for pursuing such arrangements in the water
quality area is found in section 304(j)(1) of the FWPCA Amendments, 33 U.S.C.
§ 1314(j)(1) (Supp. III, 1973).

118. In Southern Burlington Co. N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 67
N.J. 151, 336 A.2d 713 (1975), the New Jersey Supreme Court invalidated the
Township's zoning ordinances on the ground that they unlawfully excluded persons
of low and moderate income. The court held that a municipality may not, through
land use regulation, make it physically and economically impossible to provide low
and moderate income housing for persons who need and want it, and that Mount
Laurel's ordinances were contrary to public policy. The court viewed ecological and
environmental considerations as inadequate reasons for limiting housing to single-
family dwellings on large lots.

Five months later, in Construction Indus. Ass'n of Sonoma Co. v. City of Petaluma,
522 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1975), the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court opinion, 375
F. Supp. 574 (N.D. Cal. 1974), which had voided as unconstitutional certain aspects
of Petaluma's five-year housing and zoning plan. The Ninth Circuit upheld the plan
as rationally related to the social and environmental welfare of the City, stating:

[T]he concept of the public welfare is sufficiently broad to uphold Petaluma's
desire to preserve its small town character, its open spaces and low density of
population, and to grow at an orderly and deliberate pace.

522 F.2d at 908-09. See generally Comment, Environmental Law and Residential
Exclusion: Protecting the Environment or Preserving Neighborhood Status Quo?, 2
COLUM. J. ENVIR. L. 102 (1975).



COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

tribute to consistent and cohesive growth policy formulation, while
preserving maximum local option and initiative.

Environmental protection programs can be short-sighted and off
target if they do not fully account for their land use impacts and
implications. Similarly, land use policies are meaningful only in the
context of overall community growth-a context where tradeoffs
between environment and economy, resource availability and con-
suming propensities, today's urgencies and tomorrow's aspirations
are confronted and dealt with in an open manner.

Because land use decisions are so critical in determining the
quality and character of our lives, the citizens of a given area or
region and their elected officials must have the strongest possible
voice in these decisions. Such decisions cannot be based upon a
single concern or criterion-whether it be air quality, housing, or
economic development. Instead, they must embrace the broad so-
cial, economic and ecological concerns and needs within an area or
region. It was largely for these reasons that the EPA-in the sig-
nificant deterioration regulations it recently issued' "-refused to
impose, by federal fiat and according to the single criterion of air
quality, what would amount to an almost absolute prohibition
against growth over vast regions of the nation.

One of the major challenges to our society, and specifically to
our states and localities, is to deal effectively with the issues of
growth. These issues will involve an increasing shift in emphasis
from abatement to the prevention of pollution. In terms of technol-
ogy, the EPA must seek not simply to encourage the development
of more sophisticated kinds of "add-on" controls, but to push effec-
tively for basic changes in the processes themselves. In terms of
life-style changes and land use environmental policy decisions, the
EPA must encourage the states and localities-and their citizens
-to really come to grips with the complex and critical conse-
quences posed by our patterns and pressures for physical growth.

These kinds of issues cannot be dealt with by handing out a
grant or requiring the installation of a cleanup device. It is,
moreover, in most cases not the job of a federal agency to make
the basic decisions and choices concerning these issues-it is the
job of citizens themselves to do so through the democratic political

119. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21 (1975); 39 Fed. Reg. 42510 (1974), amended, 40 Fed. Reg.
25004 (1975), and 40 Fed. Reg. 42012 (1975). The significant deterioration regula-
tions are discussed at notes 48-52 and accompanying text supra.

288 [2: 255



1976] The EPA Programs 289

process at the state, local and regional levels. It is an EPA respon-
sibility to see to it that citizens, through the political process at
these levels, face up to these issues in full knowledge of the conse-
quences of alternative choices. It is, in other words, the federal
responsibility to emphasize these issues by not only ensuring that
states and localities do not continue to duck them, but by helping
them make the appropriate institutional changes and to assure that
the financial and technical resources available are effectively used.
Too often we at the federal level tend to evade responsibility
through the rhetoric of "turning things over to the locals." We
must continue to take our responsibilities seriously and work with
state and local governments and an enlightened citizenry in making
the hard choices we must all live with.