Title: "208" Studies: Institutional and Legal Constraints
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003047/00001
 Material Information
Title: "208" Studies: Institutional and Legal Constraints
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Richard Hamann's Collection - "208" Studies: Institutional and Legal Constraints
General Note: Box 12, Folder 6 ( Legal, Institutional and Social Aspects of Irrigation and Drainage and Water Resources Planning and Management - 1979 ), Item 13
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003047
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text









208 Planning: The Economics of Choice

by

A. Hamilton

L.W. Libby*

The Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) represent
the most ambitious and comprehensive water quality legislation to date.
The Act is ambitious in that it calls for zero discharge of pollutants
into the nation's water ways by 1985 and where possible, swimmablee" and
"fishable" waters by 1983. It is comprehensive because it recognized
that not only would traditional point sources of pollution have to be
abated, but non-point sources as well. A key step in improving the na-
tion's waters is the planning process. Those who draw up plans to im-
prove water quality must seek means which are not only technically feas-
ible but politically feasible as well. PL 92-500 recognized this
important rule. As a result of the Act and subsequent court decisions,
various agencies throughout the entire country are carrying out water
quality planning under Section 208 of the Act.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. In the first section, the
performance implications of alternative water quality planning institu-
tions will be discussed. In particular, the question of the differences
between state and regional planning and the effects of the size of the
planning area will be explored. In this section some of the results of
the author's empirical study of the Section 208 planning process will be
Presented. In the latter section of this paper some of the distribution-
al aspects of pollution reduction in resources will be examined and the
questions of who benefits and who pays discussed. In both sections the
'principle focus of the discussions will be on diffused or non-point
Sources of pollution.












Research Assistant and Associate Professor, respectively, Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan.






IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


Performance of Alternative Section 208 Planning Agencies

Section 208 planning is done by a number of different institutions
with planning areas of various sizes. These planning institutions range
from units of city and county government to state government and the
size of the planning areas follow similar boundaries. In this section
two separate but related questions will be addressed. First the ques-
tion of what difference it makes if a state or multi-county regional
agency prepares a plan will be discussed and then the effect of the size
of the jurisdictional boundary will be explored.

Before either of these areas can be examined, however, it is neces-
sary to find a way to measure the performance of a planning activity.
This, in turn, hinges on defining the output of a planning process. The
quick answer to this question is "a plan," -- the document itself. How-
ever, this definition would make no distinction between a plan that
called for seeking economic development funds for an impoverished area
and nationalization of all private property. The planning document is
nothing more than a collection of papers, unless some set of decision
makers decides that the measures it calls for ought to be implemented.
Thus, implementation should be a key gauge of the output of a plan. If
we spend a million dollars for a plan and that plan is not implemented,
no human action with respect to natural resources is altered, and then
we have probably wasted a great portion of that money.

If we use as a measure of performance the ability to implement a
plan, the next question to be addressed is who must implement that plan.
In the case of the control of non-point pollution, the unit of govern-
ment which must implement would appear, at least for the time being, to
be local government. To a large extent non-point sources of pollution
arise from the manner in which landholders use their land. The units of
government with the greatest amount of discretion in controlling land
use are the local governments (county, city and township).* It would
appear that at least for the foreseeable future, if planning for the
reduction of non-point pollution is to be effective, it will have to bE
implemented at the local level. Thus, any attempt to gauge the perform
mance of Section 208 water quality planning will have to look at the
factors which affect an agency's ability to implement a plan at the
local level.

If local governments are to begin to control land use for the pur-j
pose of improving the quality of water, this would seem to imply that
non-marginal change in the role of local governments will have to occur,

*Local governments, however, do not have sole discretion in this
area. The state and federal governments also have powers that can
affect land use.









ii






208 PLANNING


This change will only be made if some group provides local decision
makers with a great deal of information about the benefits of such an
action. This information subsidy* activity describes the role of the
planner. It would seem reasonable to suggest that the probability of
a plan's being implemented is a positive function of the amount of in-
formation about the plan that planners provide to decision makers. This
information exchange is mutual. The planner can extoll the virtues of a
given plan and the decision maker can provide the planner with informa-
tion about what elements of the plan are acceptable and which are not.

We have hypothesized that this interchange of information is facili-
tated as the size of the planning area. In other words, its jurisdic-
tional boundaries approach the jurisdictional boundaries of the units
which will implement the plans. This suggests that as the size of the
planning area grows, planners face higher and higher transactions costs
in interacting with local decision makers. As examples, the costs of
driving between the agency office and the decision maker's office in-
crease as distances increase. Phone costs increase, staff size in-
creases, which in turn requires more coordination and administration.
All these factors increase the cost of a planner's interaction with a
decision maker and as such, reduce the number of such interactions which
are possible. This, in turn, ought to affect the relative probability
of a plan's implementation.

To test this hypothesis, data were gathered on the information ex-
change process. A survey was sent to all the Section 208 planning
agencies in the 50 states. This survey gathered information on the
number of public participation hearings-that the agency held and special
presentations to local legislators made by the agency. In addition, in-
formation on public participation budgets and staffs as well as charac-
teristics of the agency and its Section 208 planning area were gathered
in the questionnaire. Of a total of 217 questionnaires which represen-
ted a census of the relevant Section 208 agencies, a total of 163
(75.1%) were found usable when returned.

In the analysis of these data, two different procedures were used.
The first was a test of the differences in the information exchange
variables of two different classes of agencies with Section 208 planning
responsibilities. For the most part Section 208 planning is done by two
different agencies, multi-county regions and State Departments of Natu-
ral Resources, Conservation, Environment or Public Health.** Almost in-
variably the state units are responsible for planning for larger areas


For more detailed discussion of this process, see Bartlett, R., The
Economic Foundations of Political Power, Free Press, New York, 1973.
**Section 208 plans are to a lesser extent also drawn up by county
governments, city governments, and multi-state regions.






IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


than the regions. The average state unit planned for 62.45 counties and
the average region contained 4.41 counties. This difference is signif-
icant to the .000 level when a one-tailed hypothesis that the state
areas are bigger than the regions is specified.* On the basis of the
preceding discussion, the test hypothesis is the one-tailed hypothesis
that the information exchange values for the state agencies will be less
than the information exchange values for the regional agencies. Because
these two agencies are vastly different, a test within each agency class
was also performed. In this case a test of the correlation (R) between
the information exchange values and the number of counties in the plan-
ning area was made. Since it is expected that the ability of exchange
information is reduced by an increase in planning area size, a negative
relationship between the information exchange variables and the number
of counties in the planning area is expected.

Between Organization Analysis

The first set of tests looks at the difference between the state and
regional agencies' public participation hearings, budgets, and staffs
(Table 1). In each of these tests the hypothesis that the region's
value would be higher than the state's is borne out. Each test is sig-
nificant at the .05 level or better.

While Table 1 deals with the information exchange procedures in a
very general way, Tables 2 and 3 look at this exchange as it relates
to specific sets of decision makers. In Table 2 the average number of
special presentations to county legislators and city and township legis-
lators for each type of agency is reported. These relationships are
again highly significant and bear out the previously suggested hypoth-
esis. These questions, however, tended to be the least answered in the
questionnaire and thus the potential for non-response bias in this table
exists. This non-response problem is improved slightly in Table 3 which
looks at whether an agency did or did not provide such special presenta-
tions. In this non-parametric procedure, the chi squared statistics
suggested that the regions choose to make special presentations to
county legislators and city township legislators on a more regular basis
than the state agencies, and as such confirm our original hypothesis.
Within Agency Analysis

One of the problems with comparing state and regional agencies is
that the agencies themselves are not very similar. This problem can be
controlled if the relationship between the information exchange vari-
ables and the planning area size is examined while holding agency type
constraint. This procedure was done using the correlation coefficient
R. Both the state and regional agencies were tested in this fashion.

In the test procedures two different assumptions about the un er-
lying functional form of the relationship were tested. The two i ~'tit
relationships were linear and experiential. When the tests were

Source: author's research.




















TABLE 1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION HEARINGS, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BUDGETS AND
STAFF PER COUNTY AND PER 1,000 POPULATION.


PUBLIC PARTICIPATION


Public Participation
Hearings Per County
States
Regions

Public Participation Hearings
Per 1,000 Population
States
Regions

Public Participation
Budget Per County
States
Regions

Public Participation Budgets
Per 1,000 Population
States
Regions

Public Participation
Staff Per County
States
Regions

Public Participation Staff
Per 1,000 Population
States
Regions


N Mean

28 .67
85 15.46



28 .0251
83 .2050



32 $12,900
83 $33,828



32 $ 95.00
79 $215.89


.1836
.7196



.0018
.0065


Standard Error

.711
38.022


.005
.063



9,311
6,645



17.67
21.69



.114
.125



.000
.001


Significance

.021


.048


.001




.008




.012























TABLE 2. NUMBER OF SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS MADE TO COUNTY LEGISLATORS
AND CITY AND TOWNSHIP LEGISLATORS

N Mean Standard Error
Number of Special Presentations to
County Legislators per County


States
Regions
Number of Special Presentations to
City and Township Legislators per County
States
Regions


13 .252
55 3.015


12 .943
53 10.260


.091
.649


.482
1.970


TABLE 3. AGENCIES MAKING SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS TO COUNTY LEGISLATORS
AND CITY AND TOWNSHIP LEGISLATORS


YES (%)


Special Presentations Made to
County Legislators
States
Regions
Special Presentations Made to
City and Township Legislators
States
Regions


NO (%)


N X2*


15 (68.2) 7 (31.8) 22
69 (86.2) 11 (13.7) 80


15 (71.4) 6 (28.6) 21
77 (92.8) 6 ( 7.2) 83


2.73



5.53


Significance


.0983



.0186


"Chi squared statistic is adjusted with the Yeat's correction for continuity.


-n* .. ~ -- a






















TABLE 4. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF COUNTIES IN THE PLANNING AREA AND
INFORMATION SUBSIDY VARIABLES FOR STATE AGENCIES WITH AN IMPLICIT EXPONENTIAL RELATIONSHIP

Dependent Variables R Significance of R

Public Participation Hearings per County -.455 .0044
Public Participation Hearings per Unit of Population -.474 .0096
Public Participation Budgets per County -.295 .0503
Public Participation Budgets per Unit of Population -.297 .0492
Public Participation Staff per County -.535 .0009
Public Participation Staff per Unit of Population -.380 .0377
Number of News Releases per County -.329 .0377
Z

TABLE 5. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF COUNTIES IN THE PLANNING AREAS AND
INFORMATION SUBSIDY VARIABLES FOR REGIONAL AGENCIES WITH AN IMPLICIT EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION

Dependent Variables R Significance of R

Public Participation Hearings per County -.469 .0000
Public Participation Hearings per Unit of Population -.329 .0012
Public Participation Budgets per County -.252 .0112
Public Participation Budgets per Unit of Population -.322 .0019
Public Participation Staff per County -.032 .3865
Public Participation Staff per Unit of Population -.105 .176
Number of News Releases per County -.329 .0024






IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


formed on the data from the state and regional agencies, in both cases
the exponential functional form tended to explain more of the variation
in the data. Tables 4 and 5 present the correlation coefficients between
the information exchange variables and the number of counties using the
implicit exponential functional form. The reader is reminded that a
negative relationship between these variables is hypothesized.

In both cases the sign of the correlation coefficients are consis-
tent with the hypothesis and with the exception of two variables in the
regional analysis, significant at the .0503 level or better. It is
interesting to note that the three variables which represent direct in-
formation exchange activities, public participation hearings per county,
public participation hearings per unit of population, and number of news
releases per county are all highly significant.

On the other hand, none of these coefficients are indicative of a
tremendously strong relationship. While this may be somewhat disturb-
ing from a statistical standpoint, from a policy perspective it should
be intuitively obvious that a multitude of other factors, some measur-
able but most not, operate to affect the dependent variables. While
this analysis can specify the nature and direction of the functional re-
lationship between the variables, it is probably not exact enough to
specify the exact equation, if indeed such an animal exists.

Conclusions

If the assumption that the degree to which planners and local deci-
sion makers exchange information is positively related to the probabil-
ity that a plan will be implemented, then on the basis of this axiom and
the analysis of the data provided, it is possible to infer that:

1. In general, plans drawn up by regional agencies have a greater
probability of implementation at the local level than plans drawn
up by state agencies.
2. In both state and regional agencies, as the jurisdictional
boundaries of the planning area increase, the probability of a plan
being implemented at the local level decreases.

Limitations of the Analysis

It would appear that some strong conclusions can be made on the
basis of this analysis. At the same time, this analysis is not without
limitations and those limitations ought to be made explicit. The first
limiting factor concerns the observation that this analysis has only
dealt with formal information systems. That is, there was no means of
measuring informal exchanges that may have occurred between and among
the various classes of actors in the planning process. Indeed, it is
S almost a matter of definition that informal information systems are not
quantifiable.

This analysis also tried to measure the information variables on a
quantitative as opposed to a qualitative basis. While, for example, the
number of public participation hearings was measured, no attempt was
made to ascertain what was said at them. It should be clear that what i






208 PLANNING


said or not said at a meeting, and the manner in which it is said will
impact very heavily on the way that information is perceived and dis-
counted. Along the same line, no difference was assigned to meeting
whether they were attended by one or a thousand observers. The compre-
hensive measurement of such qualitative factors, even if possible, were
beyond the resources available to the authors.

No measures were developed by the historical perspective or politi-
cal climate facing the planner and the relative aides or barriers these
factors may have placed in his or her path. In addition, the informa-
tion exchange process was measured only as it applied to transactions
between planners and various groups in the community. No measure was
taken of efforts made by other groups which may have provided informa-
Stion that would have supported or opposed the planners' position.

Distributional Consequences

Finally, this analysis has assumed that the power to implement many
of the policies that will be necessary to control non-point pollution
lie with local governments. It is useful to question whether this unit
of government will control land use to reduce non-point pollution in
spite of all the information exchange activities that it undertakes.
The decision makers involved will decide to control non-point pollution
only if the political benefits outweigh the political costs. If local
governments do not act, it is possible that other levels of governments
will. The unit of government that these decisions will be made at will
have a great impact on the question of who pays for cleaning up non-
point pollution.

The essential problem in trying to reduce non-point pollution is to
reduce the difference between the social and private costs of land use
decisions. Governments may make use of a variety of techniques to re-
duce the difference between these costs. These techniques can include
taxation, regulation, subsidies, purchase or educational activities.
The choice of technique will determine who will bear the costs of a
given program. The choice of technique in turn will depend on whose
interests count with the body that chooses a technique.

An example may make this whole point clearer. If I own 100 acres of
"-farm land and the cost of reducing the pollution from that land is $50
an acre, then it will cost $5000 to accomplish this goal. If a unit of
government tells me that it is illegal for me to non-point pollute and
it sets sufficient penalties, then I will bear the cost of cleaning up
the water. If, on the other hand, it tells me that they will pay me
the $5000 to adopt the management practices that will reduce non-point
Pollution, then it is the government and hence the taxpayers who have
borne the cost of cleaning the water. It makes a real difference,
-particularly if you are a land owner.

Many of the powers to control land use are at present held by local
governments. While they are held at that level they are not necessarily
exercised. This is particularly true in rural areas where the resis-
tance to land use controls has been high. This involves something of a
paradox, while local governments have land use control powers, land






IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


owners, particularly in rural areas have relatively large amounts of
influence of the dependence of local governments on property taxes. We
can expect, then, that local governments will be in favor of non-point
pollution control programs which do not place the burden of paying for
clean water on the land owner. These means would include subsidies,
voluntary and educational programs. Indeed, these seem to be the types
of programs that are most frequently proposed when the implementation of
PL 92-500's "Best Management Practices" are discussed.

But will these measures be enough? We can expect that non-point
pollution be reduced by voluntary and educational programs only to the
extent that the benefits to the land owner outweigh the costs. These
can be effective. A good example is the provision of information to
farmers about the benefits of minimum tillage techniques. Subsidies
presumably provided by the federal government can also be effective.
But they do cost money. We can expect that the federal government may
be willing to pay for the reduction of non-point sources only up to some
point. Beyond some point at the federal level, the political cost of
getting the next subsidy dollar will exceed the political costs of try-
ing to impose a regulatory program. The question is whether this point
will be reached before the political demands for cleaner water placed on
the federal government are satisfied.

Local units of government may be unwilling or unable to satisfy the
federal demands for a reduction of non-point pollution. If this is the
case, then we may observe that state government or even the federal
government may become more directly involved in reducing non-point pol-
lution. At these levels of government land owners would appear to have
relatively less influence than at the local level. This would seem to
imply that these levels of government would be more willing to impose
regulatory solutions to solve non-point pollution problems. These pro-
grams would in turn place more of the burden of cleaning up non-point
sources of pollution on the land owner.

Thus, the question of who pays for cleaning up non-point sources of
pollution will at least in part be determined by the level of government
that decides how it is to be done. Local governments appear to be get-
ting the first crack at this touchy problem. If they succeed in satis-
fying the federal government, land owners will probably not be negative-
ly affected. However, most of the benefits of any program a local
government proposes will probably occur outside the boundary of that
government. In addition, there is a strong aversion to effective land
use controls in rural areas where non-point sources of pollution are
relatively greater. If the local performance on non-point pollution
does not satisfy the federal government, then we may witness a redistri-
bution of some of the rights previously associated with Fee simply owrne
ownership of land and a redistribution of what were previously local
prerogatives concerning land use.






208 PLANNING


SELECTED REFERENCES

Bartlett, Randall, Economic Foundations of Political Power, Free Press,
New York, 1973.

"Clean Water and the Land: Local Government's Role," Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1977.

"Conservation Districts and 208 Water Quality Management," Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Environemtnal Protection Agency, June 1977.

Environmental Comment, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute,
January 1976.

"Environmental Impact of Land Use on Water Quality," Chicago, IL:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, October 1977.

Hamilton, A., "The Effect of Jurisdictional Boundaries and Information
Subsidy Activities on Section 208 (PL 92-500) Planning," Masters
Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State
University, 1978.

Hamilton, A. & Libby, L.W., "The Policy Relevance of Alternative Insti-
tutional Approaches to 208 Planning," Paper prepared for the 10th
Annual Cornell Conference, "Best Management Practices for Agricul-
ture and Silviculture," Rochester, N.Y., April 26 28, 1978.

"Legal and Institutional Approaches to Water Quality Management Planning
and Implementation," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, March 1977.

Libby, L., "'208 Planning' The Slumbering Giant in Land and Water Policy,
An Issues Paper," Draft paper for the Workshop on Wastewater Treat-
ment in Rural Areas, May 4 & 5, 1977, Pittsburgh, PA, Staff Paper
77-36, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State
University.

"Report to the Congress: National Water Quality Goals Cannot Be
Attained Without More Attention to Pollution From Diffused or 'Non-
Point' Sources," Washington, D.C., Comptroller General of the United
States, December 20, 1977.













LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN 208 MANAGEMENT

Lee E. Koppelman


INTRODUCTION

Nassau and Suffolk Counties occupy one-sixth of the land area of the
New York Metropolitan Region. The two counties comprise the major por-
tion of Long Island and extend eastward from the New York City border
for approximately 60 miles to Riverhead. East of Riverhead two forks,
or peninsulas, continue eastward, separated by the waters of Peconic and
Gardiners Bays. The northern fork terminates at Orient Point and is
approximately 20 miles in length. The southern fork terminates at
Montauk and is about 44 miles long. The land area of the two counties
is approximately 1200 square miles.

Long Island Sound on the north and the Atlantic Ocean on the south and
east provide a strong marine orientation for the Island's development.
The south shore is paralleled by barrier beaches which create bays be-
tween the south shore of the Island and the ocean from Long Beach on
the west to the Hamptons in the Town of Southampton. Jones, Fire Is-
land, Moriches, and Shinnecock inlets connect these bays to the ocean.

Urbanizing coastal areas of the United States, such as Nassau and
Suffolk Counties, are confronted with a triad of planning concerns that
require urgent attention in the face of such pressure. The triad con-
sists basically of:

1. Planning for urban and surrounding metropolitan communities
2. Planning for rural areas and their interactions with urban
communities
3. Planning for the contiguous marine environment.

Typically, planning has dealt with the first two elements, but has
omitted the marine environment and its interactions with adjacent land
uses. Truly comprehensive planning for the management of coastal areas.
requires the blending of the three elements.

Nassau and Suffolk Counties contain all three of the elements from the
heavily urbanized westernmost reaches of Nassau County, through the
rapidly suburbanizing middle part of the Island, to the rural agricul-
tural lands of eastern Suffolk County, all of which are surrounded and
influenced by the marine environment. Thus, the two counties are a
microcosm of the coastal zone of the United States; a veritable labora-
tory experiencing most of the conflicts resulting from dynamic growth.



1 Executive Director, Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board







208 MANAGEMENT


In response to earlier perceived growth problems, e.g., residential
sprawl, transportation deficiencies, rapidly changing community charac-
ters, increased deterioration of older downtown and housing, and short-
ages of community facilities, the Boards of Supervisors of Nassau and
Suffolk Counties created the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board in
1965. This agency's prime task was to prepare a comprehensive plan
which would serve as a guide for all units of government in the two
counties in coping with future growth, and to reverse the negative
aspects of past development.

This assignment was completed in July, 1970. In essence, it recommended
controls on the ultimate size of growth, location and form of develop-
ment, and institutional changes necessary to achieve implementation.

Based on environmental data extant at the time it was apparent that the
most obvious limit to growth was available potable water. It was also
apparent that some degradation of these waters had already occurred.
Since the projected total population of 3.3 million people by 1995 was
less than 60% of the estimated yield that could be sustained, it was
assumed that the plan was environmentally prudent.

The Board also recommended that additional funds be sought to conduct
water quality studies in order to insure that the two counties sole
source of potable water not be jeopardized. The advent of the 1972
Amendments, and particularly its Section 208 planning provisions, fur-
nished the answer to this quest.

The Board received a $5.2 million grant from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to conduct an areawide wastewater management plan.
SThe legal and institutional issues, conflicts, and management proposals
that relate to and emanate from this planning experience is the essence
of this paper.

The Act and the regulations drafted by EPA thereto, requires a commit-
ment from the 208 agencies to indicate how implementation of the
planning recommendations will be carried out. This implies that tech-
nical, fiscal, and political objectives can be achieved and that major
constraints will somehow be ameliorated. The areawide 208 plan is
implementable. The ease of implementation, though, is partially depen-
,dent on knowledge of the constraints that inhibit public action, and
thorough preparation to cope with them. This is true for minor projects
and even generally popular ones, let alone costly and less favorite
ones. Constraints often are complex and not easily identified or cate-
gorized. Attempts must be made to reduce these limits to implementation
as though they were singular. For this purpose it is assumed that all
barriers fall into three neat classes: technical, fiscal, and politi-
cal. Unfortunately, an apparent technical limit to some observers may
justifiably be considered to be really fiscal in origin by others. Such
potential definitional disputes are recognized. We dispense with this
dilemma by taking a firm grasp of this disclaimer: The following para-
graphs are illustrative and can be re-defined as to category but
accurate in that they all tend to hinder implementation of public pro-
grams.







IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


CONSTRAINTS

Technical Limits These include the availability and quality of the
data on which technical alternatives are identified, prioritized, and
chosen; the state of the art of equipment and methodology; and the
existence of suitable agencies to design, construct, operate, monitor,
maintain, and regulate the structural devices and facilities.

One concern that permeated this program was the adequacy of the input
data that was used to verify the models and identify the "real world"
of Long Island's hydrogeological/ecological system. More monitoring
should be conducted, and on a continuous basis. More has to be known
about health and environmental standards. The list is awesome! Fortu-
nately, sufficient information and experience was available to enable
the preparation of this initial 208 plan. When implementation is con-
sidered, however, it must be in the context of a continuous planning
effort. As the data and knowledge base improve, modifications of the
plan may become necessary.

Waste treatment processes and equipment currently available (from the
standpoint of proven reliability and efficient performance) can meet the
recommended needs of the Nassau-Suffolk program. However, some manage-
ment alternatives such as large scale recharge to the aquifer will not
become operationally reliable until ongoing demonstration tests at
Cedar Creek are completed. Another example of state of the art defi-
ciency is the obvious need for improved means of producing organic free
potable water.

The administrative aspects of technical implementation are perhaps the
least difficult set of problems to resolve. Existing county and state
agencies in both counties are now implementing many monitoring, regula-
tory and operational waste treatment programs. Land use controls to a
lesser extent are also being carried out. Nonpoint source control
measures have to be significantly strengthened. The main administra-
tive questions relate to new opportunities to improve the quality and
efficiency of service for the future.

Fiscal Limits: Availability of Funding Fiscal constraints fall into
two general classes. One is the availability of money. The other is
the legal requirements that must be met prior to spending public funds.'

Federal and state transfers of revenue to local governments are the ma-
jor source of funds for major public works, e.g., highways, sewers,
etc. These grants are often the major catalyst in generating local
initiation of projects. Yet these monies also deter action due to the
following:

1. There might not,be an adequate amount to fund all the requests
throughout the country or state. Prorated shares would neces-
sitate a larger local contribution, regardless of the aid
formulas. Thus, instead of moving local action, the deficien-
cies deter them.

2. The funds are often categorical, i.e., monies are earmarked
for specific projects and/or specific construction solutions,







208 MANAGEMENT


e.g., at one time the Federal Government would fund outfalls
but not recharge. (The law has now been changed to make more
items eligible.) Local governments were then forced to choose
between a technology they may not want, but can be funded for;
or, if a different solution is chosen, pay for it totally with
local revenues. This latter case is crucial to 208 implementa-
tion, since most nonpoint pollution abatement techniques and
facilities are not currently eligible for federal grants,
except for agricultural areas.

Another fiscal constraint is the low priority accorded the sub-
sidization of sewer lateral construction, which can amount to
90% of a sewering program.

3. The condition of the bonding market also affects the availa-
bility of funds. Recent experiences in Suffolk County indicate
that due to the unstable fiscal situation in New York City, the
bond market was reluctant to invest heavily in municipal works,
except at exorbitant interest rates. One alternative to this
impasse would require the County to partially guarantee the
district bonds with earmarked revenues from the County general
sales tax. The County legislature chose this path to avoid
default on the partially constructed Southwest Sewer District.

Fiscal Limits: Legal Limits on Spending State constitutional limits
and other state and local statutes related to public spending often slow
implementation. Although conceived of as a means of providing fiscal
integrity and protection for the citizenry, these laws can impede and
sometimes prevent the creation of necessary public works.

1. Most federal and state grants require that the local govern-
ments provide a matching share. If the project is small
enough or popular enough, the local share may be obtained by
the issuance of bonds for the purpose. This can often be
authorized by local legislative resolution after a public
hearing is held on the matter. If the local government cannot
come up with their share, the grants are cancelled.

2. Projects that are costly and/or controversial are subject to
either permissive or mandatory referendum. Permissive means
that the legislative body may act as in the prior case, but
can be challenged by a segment of the public to submit the
action to a public vote. It is rare that elected bodies risk
permissive actions. This means that the proposal is put to
referendum as though it were mandated. In most instances the
vote takes place at the next regularly scheduled election.
This process alone can delay action for almost one year.

Political Limits In the last analysis, political limits determine the
"go-no go" real world climate are the most complex and therefore the
most interesting ones to resolve in moving any public program or policy
towards successful implementation. Although related to and affected by
technical and fiscal issues, political constraints are more reflective
of the democratic system, which must be responsive to the public will.
There are virtually no limits, technical or fiscal, if the public






IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


support is favorable.

The development of an implementation program and schedule is the con-
cluding phase in the preparation of a planning study. It requires that
there be a recommended course of action, or at least the identification
of reasonable alternatives, e.g., the specific objectives to be
attained including timing, the administrative agencies to conduct the
initiation and operation of programs, facilities and regulatory pro-
cedures; the fiscal resources to fund the effort; the legal provisions
to substantiate and protect the program content; and fostering of citi-
zen interest to assist in making the action politically supportable.

The remaining task is to pull the administrative, fiscal, legal, and
policy elements together into a workable and therefore implementable
package. The following pages summarize these matters under the head-
ings of Management Agencies, Fiscal Needs, Legal Needs, and Public
Informational Program.

MANAGEMENT AGENCIES

Introduction At the present time, all agencies required to implement
the various portions of the Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive Areawide Waste
Management Plan are extant. The Nassau County Department of Public
Works and the Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control are
statutorily established, with full powers and authority for the plan-
ning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of public sewage
collection and treatment systems. These Agencies, in conjunction with
the two County Health Departments, currently can implement the monitor-
ing and regulatory functions relating to all of the public health mat-
ters that are addressed in the Plan.

These four agencies, in conjunction with the powers of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, cover the entire gamut
of point and nonpoint concerns called for in the Plan. Land use recom-
mendations contained in the Plan are currently administered by the
Nassau and Suffolk County Planning Commissions in accordance with State
and/or County Charter provisions.

Areawide Planning Since December 28, 1974 the Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board has been the designated Section 208 areawide planning
agency. Between January of 1975 and December 31, 1977, this agency
has been responsible for the conduct of the $5.2 million 208 program.
With the completion of the initial plan, questions remain as to conti-
nuity of effort for periodic updating and for subsequent work related
to any portions of the initial plan subject to conditional approval.
Several options exist for the future. They would include:

1. continuance of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board as
the areawide agency,

2. the designation of Tri-State Regional Planning Commission as
the areawide agency,

3. the assumption of these functions by the New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation in accord with the similar







208 MANAGEMENT


responsibilities in other portions of the State of New York.

The first option offers several benefits. The NSRPB and its 208 affili-
ates the TAC and CAC have developed a good working relationship
among the responsible agencies and a very active and broad based citi-
zen group. A comprehensive and strongly controversial planning process
was conducted relatively on time, and with a remarkable degree of con-
sensus among the participants. Both advisory committees expressed
almost unanimous recommendations that the NSRPB continue its 208 plan-
ning functions. The administrative mechanisms are in place and func-
tioning, and the decision-making process is directly available and
open.

The second option is not recommended. The Tri-State Regional Planning
Commission has not been involved in 208 planning and would not be able
to guarantee smooth continuity.

In view of new EPA/State Agreements whereby the relationships between
the Federal government and the State for waste treatment planning pur-
poses are being clarified, one could build a good argument for Option 3
to take place. Since the State has the full responsibility for the
entire State, it would make sense to coordinate these activities in one
agency. Local input could then be achieved through the review process.
In short, the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board would review and
comment on the periodic updatings prepared by the State as they affect
Nassau and Suffolk Counties.

This would require a significant increase in staff trained in land use
planning to handle the land use and other non-structural aspects of 208
work. At the present time, N.Y.S.D.E.C. is not responsible for state
planning functions. After the demise of the Office of Planning Coordi-
nation and the Urban Development Corporation, modest planning responsi-
bilities were assigned to the Secretary of State. That office is
currently specializing in coastal zone management planning.

Figure 1 depicts the recommended Table of Organization for planning
operations, monitoring, and implementation of the water quality plan.

FISCAL NEEDS

Introduction Historically, waste treatment programs centered around
engineering solutions. Thus, it is not surprising that the Federal
response in terms of intergovernmental relations has been to sponsor
major grants for construction. Present sewage construction projects
eligible for EPA and State support may receive grants up to 87'% of the
total projects costs. This is a very necessary and strong support if
the communities are to meet the needs for a water pollution-free
society. However, in view of the impetus set forth in the Act which
encourages nonpoint source and planning control measures, it is perhaps
timely for Congress to consider adequate funding to achieve these ends
as well.

A more fiscally sound approach is to install sewerage facilities in
accordance with the 208 Plan as development occurs, as one of the pre-
ventive measures for protecting water quality. Therefore, in areas








IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES




FIGURE 1
MANAGEMENT TABLE OF ORGANIZATION


USEPA NSRpBS r r --- ----- -- NYSDEC


Technical Citizens'
Advisory Advisory
Committee Committee



FUNCTIONAL MANAGEMENT MONITORING AGENCIES
AGENCIES

Agricultural Erosion NCDH NYSDH
CSWCD NYSDEC ISC
CES I I SCoHS
SCDEC
Animal Wastes SCWA
CSWCD CES NCDPW (Water Div.)
MUNICIPALITIES
IMPLEMENTATION
Construction Activities I

COUNTIES Funding Permits.
MUNICIPALITIES I Regulations

Land Use Controls I USEPA NYSDEC ISC
NASSAU COUNTY
NCPC SCPC SUFFOLK COUNTY
MUNICIPAL MUNICIPALITIES


PLANNING DEPTS.

Point Source

NYSDEC NYSEFC
NCDPW SCDEC
MUNICIPALITIES

Solid Waste Disposal

COUNTIES
MUNICIPALITIES

Urban Stormwater
MUNICIPALITIES
COUNTIES


LEGEND
Related To

- Direct Input


Operations, Permits,
Regulations

- NCDPW NCDH
SCDEC SCDHS


Best Mgt. Practices
Land Use Controls

NASSAU COUNTY
SUFFOLK COUNTY
NCPC SCPC
"- MUNICIPALITIES
CSWCD CES







208 MANAGEMENT


where land use controls are not implemented, sewering should be con-
ducted in accordance with the 208 guidelines.

The purchase of development rights and/or the fee simple for open-space
lands, or for the maintenance of low density communities should be con-
strued as a modified form of construction project. Wherever land
development has not already occurred, this option has to yield a
greater return on the public investment. Perhaps fiscal policy im-
provement can occur if waste treatment programs were written in a for-
mat similar to that of the Community Development Act, namely, assign
block grants to communities with the general requirement to reduce
water pollution. Let the local governments decide the most efficacious
way of doing this. The states and localities would then have a greater
incentive to exercise more stringent land controls.

Funding of Nonpoint and Non-Structural Programs The most difficult to
estimate are the nonpoint and/or non-structural recommendations. Many
Best Management Practices (BMP), e.g., fertilizer applications, catch
basin maintenance, control of animal wastes,'depend more on public in-
formational efforts and financing should not constitute an impediment to
implementation. This would be for control of erosion and runoff from
construction sites and, presumably, would be borne mainly by the private
developer. Local communities should also be able to utilize a portion
of their Community Development funds for stormwater control projects.
Thus, the fiscal impact on local governments should not be significant.
Watershed management, however, could engender significant costs.

For agricultural nonpoint source control, part of PL 95-217 was
amended, (the Culver Amendment), to provide cost-sharing to owners and
operators of rural lands who implement conservation practices that re-
late to the improvement of offsite water quality. $200 million has
been appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture for this purpose for
1979, and $400 million for 1980. Thus it appears that financial sup-
port for erosion and sediment controls will be available for agricul-
tural lands.

However, this will not provide funds for the implementation of other
nonpoint source control measures. It is, therefore, recommended that
PL 95-217 be amended to provide for the funding of all Best Management
.Practices which will reduce pollution caused by nonpoint sources. This
should also allow for the funding of such programs as catch basin main-
tenance, street vacuuming and other measures. The funding level should
be commensurate with that provided for structural solutions.

LEGAL NEEDS

Introduction In general, existing laws and regulations are sufficient
Sto cope with the majority of sewage and solid waste management needs.
Point and nonpoint pollution sources are covered under New York State
Health and Environmental Conservation laws, and, additionally, by
Nassau and Suffolk Charter provisions and/or ordinances. Land manage-
ment and land use planning controls originate with the General Munici-
pal Laws of the State of New York and are amplified by the two counties'
charters. Thus, it is currently possible to operate a successful area-
wide waste treatment program in Nassau and Suffolk Counties in the






IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


framework of existing laws. Nevertheless, recommendations are con-
tained herein to strengthen the management agencies' abilities to con-
trol nonpoint sources of pollution. In most instances, local statutes
enacted by the counties and/or municipalities will be sufficient. The
legal needs covering water production, erosion and sedimentation, ani-
mal waste, and land use control follows.

Water Production The main legal needs apply to the process of well
drilling. Proposed revisions to the N.Y.S. Environmental Conservation
Law (S.3896:A.5311) relating to water well drilling and groundwater
protection will fulfill these needs.

The NSRPB recommends that the revisions be fully supported, with the
following modifications. Large agricultural wells should not be exempt,
nor should wells be abandoned or sealed if they can be used for moni-
toring purposes. In addition, where a public water utility does not
have the economic resources or legal authority to finance water main
extensions, the same rationale employed in fostering the construction
of waste water collection and treatment systems by Federal and State
grants should also be employed in grants for financing water supply
expansion. The public health benefit is immediate and directly measur-
able in contrast to the potential long term benefit assigned to most
sewering projects. It is, therefore, strongly urged that legislation
be recommended and encouraged to provide this vital protection to the
general health and welfare.

Nonpoint Source Control, Erosion and Sedimentation The major source of
erosion and the resultant sedimentation in Suffolk County is primarily
due to construction activities. Numerous State laws and local ordi-
nances concerned with land use and water resources can be used to imple-.
ment some level of erosion control. The Soil and Water Conservation
District Law is the only State law that deals specifically with soil
erosion and sediment control.

The law states that by January 1, 1980, the Districts will have pro-
vided a plan to each owner and occupier of agricultural land within the
District boundaries who have requested a plan. The law is deficient on
two counts. It only applies to agricultural lands, and contains no en-
forcement procedures to assure compliance. The NSRPB recommends that
the State law be amended to overcome the current deficiencies, thus
assuring positive control for the agricultural areas of Long Island.
This would be timely and not impose a burden on owners due to the
recent passage of the FWPQA amendments of 1977.

Nonpoint Source Control, Fertilizers The NSRPB recommends that the
following three steps be implemented:

1. An educational effort be immediately adopted to discourage any
excessive use of fertilizers and to promote adoption of low
maintenance lawns;

2. Research to be undertaken to:
a. Further monitor the use and fate of nitrogen applied to
turf,
b. Investigate the feasibility of developing satisfactory low







208 MANAGEMENT


maintenance lawns;

3. Update the N.Y.S. law to, in particular, require a label for
turf fertilizers to be used in Nassau and Suffolk.

Nonpoint Source Control, Animal Wastes

Introduction Dogs and semi-wild White Pekin ducks were found to be
unregulated sources of nonpoint animal waste pollution. Urban runoff
containing dog waste and other animal waste is responsible for most of
the recent closures of shellfish growing areas. An information program
and new laws are recommended to control dog waste disposal. Semi-wild
White Pekin ducks and their descendants are also serious sources of
pollution in many ponds and lakes. New laws and public awareness con-
cerning the problem are needed to control these wastes.

Conservation Plan for Animal Wastes Under present State law agricul-
tural producers must develop a plan to reduce sediment and related ani-
mal waste pollution by January 1, 1980. This plan is to be developed
with the assistance of the Nassau and Suffolk County Soil and Water
Conservation Districts. The NSRPB recommends that the present law be
amended to require non-agricultural animal owners, who have high con-
centrations of animals per acre, to develop a plan, with Soil Conserva-
tion District assistance, for the control of animal waste. Table 1
indicates the maximum number of animals that should be allowed per acre
of open land without a conservation plan.

Table 1
MAXIMUM ANIMALS PER ACRE
OF OPEN LAND WITHOUT A CONSERVATION PLAN

Equine Livestock 2 Hogs 14

Beef Cattle 3 Ducks 400

Dairy Cows 2 Sheep 24

Turkeys 160 Dogs 20

Chickens 500

or any combination of animals exceeding 2,000 lbs. of body weight.

Land Management/Land Use Authority Various sections of the FWPCA
(101, 201, 303 and 314) make reference to land use management require-
ments, the preservation of land resources, and generally indicate that
land use regulations should be utilized to control point and nonpoint
sources of pollution.

Section 208 provides that the areawide treatment management plan in-
clude "the establishment of a regulatory program to regulate the loca-
tion, modification, and construction of any facilities within such area
which may result in any discharge in such area ...". This appears to
require indirect authority for the 208 plan to regulate location of all
pollutant discharges by seeking appropriate changes in land use plans






IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


from the agencies possessing land use control jurisdiction in the 208
area.

A more explicit authority for the 208 plan to consider land use in the
208 area is provided in Section 208 (b) (2) which states that the plan
will set forth procedures and methods including land use requirements
to control, to the extent feasible, nonpoint sources of pollution. The
term "land use requirements" in Section 208 (b) (2) should be inter-
preted to include those land use controls (legally permitted uses) and
those land management regulations (regulations of activities conducted
on land) which contribute to the attainment of water quality standards.

The nature of the "land use authority" that is required by FWPCA is
discussed in EPA, Draft Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment Manage-
ment, (May, 1974), Chapter 4.

These guidelines provide that:

"primary reliance will be placed on utilizing existing land
use plans and controls. In some cases it may be necessary
to update these in order to incorporate changes responsive to
water quality objectives. In such cases, the 208 planning
agency must work closely with the local governments possessing
legal authority for land use planning and controls. It is
also possible that some jurisdiction within the 208 area will
not have land use plans and/or controls. In this case, the
208 agency should work with the appropriate jurisdiction to
gather enough information about the area so that current and
future development patterns and policies can be identified,
and, if necessary, updated to incorporate water quality
objectives."

Acting pursuant to the provisions of the General Municipal Law and
County Charter provisions, Nassau and Suffolk have authorized their
respective County Planning Commissions to review certain actions.
Municipalities are required to submit to the county planning commission:
new zoning regulations, amendments to zoning regulations; changes in
zoning district classifications, variances from zoning ordinances;
special use permits, special exceptions, or other special authoriza-
tions.

Municipalities are required to refer the zoning actions to the county
planning commission when the action will affect real property lying
within a distance of 500 feet of municipal boundary lines, existing or
proposed county or state parkways, thruways, expressways or highways;
existing or proposed rights-of-way of any stream or drainage channel
owned by the county or for which the county has established channel
lines and existing or proposed state and county-owned land on which
public buildings or institutions are located.

PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL PROGRAM

Introduction The general history of planning accomplishment through-
out the nation has been quite limited. The planners proposed and the
politicians and elective officials have disposed. A large measure of




I'_________







208 MANAGEMENT


fault lies with the planners. They often considered their work to be
finished with the delivery of the plan documents to the elected deci-
sion-makers who more often than not had little training or awareness of
what the planners were talking about. A greater deficiency was the
lack of any broad-based citizen constituency. Elected officials often
try to be responsive to the general public. Too often the public is
less aware of planning proposals and the impacts that will affect them
than their elected representatives. Ergo, no support. This wastewater
program is different. Citizen participation is mandated in the Act.
This does not automatically guarantee widespread support, but at the
least, it should ensure citizen awareness and perhaps even some citizen
input during the planning process.

Implementation of planning programs depends on the translation of
"good planning" into "good politics". The public must perceive that
there is a real crisis confronting them that must be resolved, and this
collective perception must be made known to the elected decision-makers.
All too often, public officials are confronted by the "nay-sayers".
Rarely is affirmative general support brought to their attention. Yet
this is the key. It is the essence of all successful policies and pro-
grams.

The scientific and technical findings of this 208 program have convinced
the participants that a real crisis exists in the two counties about
waste treatment management. The quality of the Island's potable and
swimming waters, the opportunities for rational growth, the potential
for sound economic development, the protection and enhancement of the
living resources in sum, the future quality of life on this Island -
depend on sound areawide waste treatment management.

We must now expand efforts to share the results of research efforts,
findings, and recommendations with the broadest array of citizens
possible.

Citizen Participation Governmental decision-making in the United
States is generally based on the notion that in a federated republic
the elected representatives shall act as surrogates for the citizens.
The ballot box serves as the arbiter of how well the 'voice of people'
is heard. Of course, special interest groups have had access to the
process by the use of lobbying, or in more limited instances, seeking
recourse through litigation. Either of these means is substantially
limited to those individuals or organizations with sufficient financial
support to wage a successful campaign.

An obvious alternative to such confrontation politics is to render
government more responsive by greater citizen involvement. This choice
appears to be the conscious commitment of Congress, specifically in
domestic legislation relating to community planning, environmental and
social issues.

Unfortunately, such participation has been quite inadequate to date.
There is no single model that has a proven record of success in a
society as complexly pluralistic or as democratic as our own. Histori-
cally, the professional planners have often acted as the surrogates for
the public interest. In this model, technical discretion is assumed to







IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


define and prescribe the means of planning actions, but not the ends.
This invariably results in 'shelved' planning proposals.

A second and perhaps more successful one, is one in which the planners
select and define the means, and also assume the responsibility of
clarifying the ends. In this instance the planner presumes to know the
needs of the public, but also the manner in which these needs are to be
fulfilled. British town planning and implementation is a notable
example of this approach (Hampton, 1976).

A third and more sophisticated model involves the planner in the role
of arbiter or mediator whereby the planner has the discretion to set
forth the means and to recommend the ends so long as a feedback
mechanism is operational between the planners and the actual providers
and consumers during the plan formulation. In this case the planner
mediates between the governmental power structure and the diverse inter-
ests among the body politic.

Since planning is essentially a governmental function, it must provide
a broad and desirable rationale for attracting and holding the support
of political leaders, appointed officials, and the general citizenry.
The appeal must be broad to cover the multitude of aspirations of such
diverse groups. Obviously, the process itself, aside from the techni-
cal aspects, is basically a political activity.

The Board at the onset faced the issue of how best to meet the require-
ments for citizen participation. We examined the literature and our
own experiences. We soon concluded a new approach was needed. The
earlier examples of limited or stacked citizen representation could not
provide the broad inputs required for a program as complex, as costly,
and as unpopular as we expected wastewater management planning to be.
Our only guidelines were that the effort had to be as open and repre-
sentative as possible. This meant that some of the approaches such as
the appointment of select and elite "citizen" representatives or the
hiring of a consultant to "organize the public" were to be avoided.
Instead, the Board advertised widely in the press and radio that this
new program was in the organizational stage and that anyone interested
in the issues of maintaining the quality of the potable and swimming
waters of Long Island should attend an informational session. In
addition, over 300 letters were sent to anyone who had ever contacted
the Board for information about any matter related to water conserva-
tion, pollution, and/or wastewater management. In particular, we strove
to identify those respondents whose views were antagonistic to prior
governmental programs. All local governments were similarly notified
about the impending project. At t e conclusion of the open meetings
attended by over 100 people, approximately 60 persons volunteered to
participate.

However, as important as citizen participation is, it must be kept in
mind that the concept of universal civic participation should not be
over-romanticized nor be expected to be achieved. Anyone with experi-
ence with any type of voluntary organization soon realizes that a
relatively small number participate in the decision-making role beyond
the selection of officers. This is but one of the problems inherent in
the very nature of participatory democracy.







208 MANAGEMENT


Conclusions Planning, as carried out in the context of this discussion
involves mediation between diverse groups and individuals who seek to
influence land use and infra-structure decisions. Planning technicians
conduct such mediation within the governmental framework and among the
public-at-large. Thus planning must be understood to be fundamentally
a political activity. It is political in the following ways: It is a
governmental process presumably set up to formulate and execute policy
on land use activities. Administratively, most planning agencies are
part of the executive branch of their respective jurisdictional levels
within government and therefore directly linked to the political power
structure. It is also political in the sense that the interplay between
different departments and levels within government, and with the private
citizens who participate, requires mediation and compromise the very
essence of politics.

This reality is not necessarily negative. The crass aspects of partisan
politics does not have to be the controlling factor. To the contrary,
partisanship should be strenuously avoided. Politics herein is held to
be the conduct of the public business in non-partisan fashion, or per-
haps more accurately stated, multi-partisan fashion. However it is
viewed, planning will be more successful if it is conducted with the
public involved, rather than for the people. The correctness of in-
cluding public participation in the planning process, as demonstrated
by our experience on Long Island, is seen in several ways. Staff and
citizenry have more access to the interests of the general public which
is invaluable for goal formulation and project design. This is of
value in selecting the most suitable allocation of staff and fiscal
means. Although co-optation of the public by the planners should not
be the aim, continued interaction will at least indicate that the plan
drawn by consultants and agency staff is not being imposed by outsiders
or from untouchable bureaucrats. It should promote greater identifica-
tion and hopefully a 'pride of authorship' on the part of the public
with the plan. It may also help to mobilize resources and support by
fostering mutual trust and understanding, particularly in instances
where tradeoffs have to be made. In addition, continuous evaluation of
the plan and its implementation will be encouraged by all who had a
role in the plan's formulation.

Hence, public participation makes the planning process more responsive,
more democratic, and often more comprehensive. And this leads to the
last aspect of the public information effort. This will include the
dissemination of reading materials, public hearings, and a broad-based
speaking program.

Publications The TAC has published a special report on animal wastes,
six interim reports, and a plan summary. In the aggregate these reports
constitute a summary of the more than 150 reports, studies, and data
memoranda produced during the conduct of the study.

All public libraries in the two counties will be furnished with the set
of TAC reports. The complete set of basic documents and data printouts
will continue to be available at the NSRPB office for viewing during
regular working hours.

The news media radio, television, and papers have given fair cover-







IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


age of the study during the past two years. Steps have been taken to
assure broad coverage of the plan summary in the media to aid in the
widest distribution possible.

Public Hearings Formal presentations will be made to the two County
legislative bodies this Spring. Additional hearings will be held in
various locations to afford town and village governments a direct oppor-
tunity to question the technicians. These public hearings will be pre-
sented by the NSRPB staff, members of the TAC, and the appropriate con-
sultants.

Speaking Program It is obvious that a region of 1200 square miles and
almost 3 million people will require more than a limited number of
public hearings if the general public is also to receive a live explana-
tion of the 208 plan. The staff will endeavor to also respond to busi-
ness, civic, and environmental groups. We expect to be ably assisted in
this opportunity by members of the CAC. They independently established
a speakers' bureau and prepared their own printed materials and a very
ably executed slide presentation.

During 1978, the NSRPB anticipates that the public informational pro-
gram, which has been in effect since 1976, will reach every interested
group in the two counties. Funding for the staff presentations will be
a NSRPB responsibility. If continuing 208 funds will not be available
for the CAC informational efforts, the NSRPB will cover these costs as
well.

Although the campaign to secure implementation will be quite arduous,
it is certainly worth the commitment of time, money, and energy. The
208 plan is a sound one, technically and fiscally, often imaginative,
and absolutely vital if Long Island's most basic natural resources, its
superb potable and marine waters, are to be preserved and enhanced.




Note: This paper is a condensation from the original presented at
Blacksburg, Virginia. It is based on the recently completed
Long Island Comprehensive Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Plan published by the agency in September, 1978. The
bibliography on the following pages identifies the key
documents specific to this paper.







208 MANAGEMENT


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning, Journal of
AIP, xxi, 4.

Donovan, J.C. (1967). The Politics of Poverty, Pegasus Press, New York.

Getsen, R.T. (1975). Analog-model Analysis of Regional Three-dimension-
al Flow in the Groundwater Reservoir of Long Island, N.Y., U.S.
Geological Survey, open file report 75-617.

Hampton, W., W. Beak (1976). Methods of Approaching Groups in South
Yorkshire, Department of the Environment, London, England, Interim
Research Paper 11.

Holzmacher, McLendon, Murrell (1968). Comprehensive Public Water Supply
Study, Suffolk County, N.Y., H2M Corp., Melville, N.Y., 3 Vol.

Koppelman, L. E., et al. (1970). The Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive
Development Plan, Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge,
N.Y.

(1974). Integration of Coastal Zone Science
and Regional Planning, Praeger Publishers, N.Y.

(1962). Local Government An Analysis, Suffolk
County Planning Commission, Hauppauge, N.Y.

Masotti. L. H., R. L. Lineberry (1976). The New Urban Politics,
Bellinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, Mass.

Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board (1977). Population Estimates
and Projections 1975-1995, Hauppauge, N.Y.

Pinder, G., et al. (1977). South Fork Data Report, Parts 1 & 2 Pre-
liminary Hydrologic Investigations of the South Fork of Long Island,
Department of Geological and Geophysical Sciences, Princeton, N.J.

Porter, K. (1977). Progress Review: Leaching of Nitrogen Due to Ferti-
lizers, and Recharge Model for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Coopera-
tive Extension Service, Suffolk County, N.Y.

Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District (SCS) (1977). Animal
Waste: Control and Management Alternatives, Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board, Hauppauge, N.Y.

Tetra Tech, Inc. (1976). Hydrologic and Water Quality Data Report Carlls
River System, L.I., N.Y.; and similar for (1976) Manhasset Bay,
Hempstead Harbor; (1976) Port Jefferson, Oyster Bay, Huntington-
Northport Complex; (1976) Peconic Estuary, Peconic River, Flanders
Bay; (1976) Stream Aquifer Model for Carlls River, et al.
















NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGIES IN FLORIDA

by Sheldon Kelman,() M. ASCE and Armando I. Perez,(2) A. M. ASCE


INTRODUCTION

The authors' participation in eight Federally-funded Areawide
Waste Treatment Management Plans (208 studies) throughout Florida has
permitted the analysis of nonpoint pollution associated with storm-
water runoff.

The control of nonpoint pollution in Florida is important for
several reasons:

o The State's economy is heavily dependent on tour-
ism and recreation (thus, clean waters are im-
portant).
o The State contains numerous wetlands and other
areas of great biological significance that
should be protected.
o There are numerous cases of increasing nutrient
over-enrichment, or eutrophication, in lakes and
slow moving waterways. These water bodies are
located in both urban and agricultural areas.
o Increased land development poses the potential of
increased runoff of pollutants, which would cause
a worsening of the above conditions.

A wide range of control recommendations have been developed in
site-specific studies. Many of these concepts could be adapted and
applied in other states.

SOURCES OF PROBLEMS

ks a result of effluent permits and wastewater facilities plan-
ning (201 plans), point sources of pollution in Florida are being


(1) Project Manager, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., Miami,
Florida.
(2) Senior Engineer, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., Miami,
Florida.

766






NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL


controlled effectively. The effluent disposal systems often utilize
land application and, in a few cases, an ocean outfall. In both sit-
uations, nonpoint sources contribute most of the pollution load to
many waterways.

Table 1 lists in decreasing severity the water quality problems
encountered in Florida. The most significant problems are algal
blooms and eutrophication of lakes, reservoirs and regulated canals
in periods of low flow. An example of this condition is the Caloo-
sahatchee River, which is the source of water for the water plants of
Lee County and the City of Fort Myers in southwest Florida. Seasonal
algae blooms cause severe water treatment problems at these water
plants. A possible control system for these problems is discussed
later in this paper.

Table 2 lists, without regard to severity, recognized sources of
nonpoint pollution in Florida. The relative importance of these
sources must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

CONTROL STRATEGIES

The strategies which can be used to control these problems in
Florida are listed in Table 3. It is noted that most of these stra-
tegies individually do not achieve a significant reduction in pol-
lutant load and thus, must be used in combination. Their proper mix
and emphasis must be developed on a site-specific basis. These con-
trols consist of three basic types:
o Structural (involving construction)

o Nonstructural, which involves two subcategories:

o Regulatory (involving licensing and
compliance monitoring)
o Nonregulatory (comprising miscellaneous
nonstructural controls such as street
sweeping, citizen information programs
and cooperative agricultural programs)

STRUCTURAL CONTROLS

Structural controls can range from simple fences that exclude
cattle from drinking water reservoirs to detention and filtration
ponds (Figures 1 and 2). These ponds remove pollutants through
settling and percolation through the soil. Structural controls for
previously developed areas are very expensive (mainly due to the high
cost of developed land) and can only be justified when a water supply
reservoir or lake must be protected. Table 3 includes a generalized
summary of costs and removal effeciencies for controls applied to de-
veloping areas.

An example of these controls is the Lake Maggiore Restoration
Plan; which involves a hypereutrophic lake located in an urban area
in St. Petersburg. Lake Maggiore is not used for water supply, but






768 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


TABLE 1

WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS IN FLORIDA(a)



Location Problems

Reservoirs, lakes and rivers Algal blooms, eutrophication
due to nutrients.

Tidal waters Low dissolved oxygen due to
poor flushing and organic
in runoff.

Beaches High coliform counts due to
runoff.




























(a) In order of decreasing severity.






NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL


TABLE 2


NONPOINT POLLUTION SOURCES IN FLORIDA



Septic Tanks


Erosion from Construction and Drainage


Pet Litter


Lawn Fertilizer


Lawn Pesticides


Car Washing


Highway Traffic


Uncontrolled Urban Runoff


Drainage Maintenance


Agricultural Runoff and Drainage









IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES








TABLE 3

CONTROL STRATEGIES SUMMARY


STRUCTURAL CONTROLS

Simple Structures -(e g., fences for cattle)

Bottomless Catchbasins
Detention Ponds

Retention and Filtration Ponds

REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Septic Tank Ordinances 0 0

Erosion Control Ordinances

Stormwater Ordinances (requiring detention/retention) b)
Reservoir Management (Shore Line Land Use Controls)

NONREGULATORY PROGRAMS

Demonstration Wetland

Septic Tank Information 0 0 0

Pet Litter Information *
Fertilizer and Pesticide Information

Car Washing Inspection
Drainage System Maintenance

Agricultural BMP's 0 0 0
Sweeping of Streets and Parking Lots 0 0 c

Monitoring and Modeling
Continuing Planning 0


(a) Reductions are estimates based on overall (basin-wide) effect.
(b) In basins already heavily developed, basin-wide reductions will be in
the 0-25 percent range

(c) Very labor-intensive, would require over 10,000 man-hours






NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL


I-
O





s.
zo


0

1-0



0
-to


UY
(30.--

UOAi

0mM
o--
rIAu


o'.
0 ,





16 0
Z c
























PERIMETER INLET OUTLET
FILTER BERM
SWALE WEIR 1' FREEBOARD WEIR
OPEN GRADED ROCK

LEGL RSIPon RAP
E_- -- WATER SURFACE H / 2
~ -,,. -----....--/ OUTLET CHANNEL
& n *- "STORMWATER POND .. -

z



z



z
0


tI

0




FIG. 2.-Section B-B


bra.-~m~-"lrrcl-*-1-~ ~XI~ L a~4


I






NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL


the loss of its fishery, recreation and aesthetic value i considered
significant enough to warrant a lake restoration effort.

The structural portion of the lake restoration plan involves the
installation of two gravity interceptor storm sewers to collect
stormwater from existing storm sewers and route it to a detention
pond (see Figure 3). The stormwater detention pond would remove
sediment, oxygen-demanding substances and nutrients. The water would
be discharged to Little Lake Maggiore, where it would be treated by
aeration to reduce the BOD, and subsequently discharged from Little
Lake Maggiore by flowing to Lake Maggiore through a wetland area.
This would further treat the stormwater by sedimentation and nutrient
uptake. Other plan features include:
o Implementation of the lake restoration plan of
the City of St. Petersburg, which includes dredg-
ing of sediment, installation of an aerator, re-
planting of rooted aquatic vegetation and re-
stocking of game fish.
o Mechanical removal of aquatic vegetation.

o Action by the City to retain the southwestern and
southern shores of the lake as a buffer zone to
filter runoff.
o A public information program to control pet
litter and the use of fertilizer in the basin.
The use of lake water to water lawns will be en-
couraged.
o A street sweeping program.

o An initial demonstration phase of the stormwater
interception and retention pond system to be con-
structed and coordinated with lake restoration
techniques to determine how to best improve and
maintain lake water quality. The city is seeking
Federal funding of this demonstration project.

The Megginnis Arm Drainage Control Plan comprises a portion of
Lake Jackson, located in Tallahassee, Florida. Megginnis Arm is pre-
sently receiving excessive amounts of nutrients and sediment from
stormwater runoff.

A survey of the largely-developed watershed indicated that non-
structural techniques such as street sweeping would not sufficiently
alleviate pollution problems. Moreover, these techniques would do
very little to control erosion and flooding problems in the stream
discharging to Megginnis Arm. Therefore, it was concluded that a
stormwater detention system above Megginnis Arm was needed.

A layout of the proposed stormwater system is shown in Figures 4
and 5. The main features of the system are:







774 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES









S iDiAINAG BASIN. BN





S*r 1-I- .



,. PRO OSeBD INTERCEPT 1
~ APROPOS AP R





T LAKE
MAGGIORE
















& 1000- 2000 FT. I


FIG. 3-Propose Structural Controls Lake Maggiore
FI.3-rpoe tutra otosLaeM gir


























MEGGINNIS ARM
(PART OF
LAKE JACKSON)


Di)ll 2 acND AID 1



PM'P STATION


ALTERNATE "B"
TOTAL AREA.(32* 5.7) 3&ACt Z
PROP.10 .M -STORAGE (DARSEa).&7('). 2SAC-FT
S.TORAGE(FNE) -m,(2X2- 62.4 A- FT 0
PRO IM TOTAL STORAGEI, 0-AC-FT
FUTURE TREATMENT' / PRO Io' M.
FACILITY 12 ACt 0

S 0 4 QNOTE: POND 1 (DEEPER) FOR SETTLING
0 20 40 IOF COARSE SOLIDS
POND 2 (SHALLOWER) FOR
SETTLING OF FINE SOLIDS




FIG. 4.-Layout of Proposed Stormwater Ponds for Meggginnis Arm


























FINE SEDIMENT POND COARSE SEDIMENT POND
EARTH DAM WITH +103 +103
RIP-RAP SLOPES 0__-.
-+ -- EXISTING
+99 __. x GROUt ..- +99 CHANNEL
.-PTT W HOLEEBAFFLEP H
-----~ GRAVEL BAFFLE BAFFLI
WELL GRADED SAND/GRAVEL
WITH UNDERDRAINS


Fii

0
FIG. 5.-Profile of Megginnis Arm Ponds C
CSa






NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL


o Reshaping and widening of the stream channel to
produce a very wide, shallow channel (optimum
conditions for settling of sediment and asso-
ciated pollutants).
o The widened area to be divided into two parts --
one (five feet deep) for settling of the coarse
particles and then one (two feet deep) for the
fine particles. Accumulated sediment would be
removed periodically.
O Gravel/sand downflow filter along the length of
the outlet weir (filter surface to be cleaned
periodically in a manner similar to that used in
wastewater treatment plant sludge drying beds).
o Use of a marsh system downstream for further nu-
trient removal.

The capital cost of such a system is estimated to be over $1
million; however, lake restoration monies may be available under PL
92-500 to help carry out this recommendation. The size of the water-
shed to be served is approximately 1,700 acres.

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Regulatory programs have been developed, including model ordi-
nances to control septic tank cqnstVrction and maintenance, induced
erosion and stormwater runoff. ''' These programs have the ad-
vantage of being relatively inexpensive to initially implement, as
compared to structural controls. The major expenses of regulatory
programs are the increased costs of administration and inspection.

In Broward County (southeast Florida), through a computer evalu-
ation of stormwater retention, an effort was made to quantify the re-
duction in pollutant load that could be achieved by applying(rtorT5
water runoff retention requirements in new developments.
Specifically, the requirements evaluated as a possible model for
'widespread use were those applied by the South Florida Water Manage-
ment District (SFWMD) for drainage discharges to its canal system.
These requirements consist of retention of the runoff from a 3-year,
1-hour ("design") storm (total magnitude of approximately 2.6 inches
bf rainfall).

The model evaluation consisted of several steps:
o Calibration of pollutant loads from existing de-
velopment predicted by the computer model STORM
to estimated loads developed from the 208 sampl-
ing program and other studies.
o Prediction by STORM of future pollutant loads
from areas to be developed.


~C






IRRIGATION, AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


o Estimation of percentage reduction of pollutant
load by retention of runoff in retention basins
(with assumption of virtually 100 percent pollu-
tant removal in stormwater captured via percola-
tion to the groundwater) .

The modeling results indicated that widespread application of
SFWMD retention requirements in developing areas should reduce annual
post-development pollution loads from these areas by approximately
three-fourths. In the meantime, recommendations for adoption of
stormwater retention requirements throughout the County have been
made.

In some locations, the most effective way to preserve lakes and
reservoirs is to manage shoreline and watershed development through
land use controls. This approach has been recommended for the upper
portion of the fllsborough reservoir near Tampa and for Lake Manatee
near Sarasota. The pollutant loads can be kept low by restricting
development to low intensity uses such as parks. The objective is to
discourage residential and commercial land uses and agricultural uses
such as row cropping, which can impose significant pollution loads if
not properly restricted. The restrictions can be less severe as the
distance to the shore line increases, assuming drainage is by over-
land flow or is diverted to detention ponds.

NONREGULATORY PROGRAMS

Nonregulatory programs are listed in Table 3. These programs
are generally of low cost, but very beneficial.

Figure 6 shows the location of the proposed managed wetland de-
monstration program in Lake Hicpochee. This lake is located on the
southwest side of Lake Okeechobee in south-central Florida. The ex-
isting drainage system through the lake carries agricultural drainage
from sugarcane grown on muck soil, which is high in nitrogen. This
runoff is presently roYtd to the Caloosahatchee River, which has
eutrophication problems.'

By modifying the drainage patterns, the runoff would be routed
through the lake's wetlands. This would increase detention time and
enhance nutrient removal. Study and monitoring of this system has
been recommended to optimize engineering design parameters. For in-
stance, there would be careful flow control and routing within the
wetland to avoid resuspension/release of accumulated nutrients during
storm events. The system has wide potential application in suburban
and agricultural areas in Florida. Figures 7 and 8 show a related
concept of a cypress wetland proposed for a residential area.

Monitoring of Control Techniques. The Broward County 208(4, 5)
recommendations on continuing monitoring involve two major items:
0 Quantification of problems from specific sources
(parking lot run off) through detailed sampling,
and in some cases, possible controls (vacuum
sweepers).






NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL 779












_0 I














..LAE HI POCH E
PI tiP ACTION


FIG. 6.-Phase 1-Detention Pond/Wetland System






IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


A


LAKE
kDEEPZONE)i> l


CHAMBER


STORM SEWER


AJ


SWALE DRAINAGE OR
BASINS SEEPAGE DRAINS WITH
OVERFLOWS


FIG. 7.-Drainage Plan


















asin F Lake Cypress Head

House Pad at
100 Yr. Flood Vaie Naural Groundi
Plain or Higher S
Varies, not less than 3'-0"
Ne V s 25 Yr. Lake Level
L(Max. El.+1.0)S I Str
Freeboard 1'-0"---op

Range= 2' Varies
S Natural Ground
Filtration Swale end/or
Fron 9 Valley Gutter
2 Storm Sewer wil b i-0" or Greater

Normal Lake Leveln

o
O


LAKE/CYPRESS DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA
O
1. Filling of development/building areas will be limited to the absolute minimum necessary.
House pads will range between 3 feet to 4.5 feet above 25 year lake level.

2. Storm water runoff will be diverted through cypress areas, filtration berms,
or settling basins before entering lake systems.
3. Water tables (wet and dry season) will be maintained at prodevelopment conditions
in preserved natural areas (cypress heads) by diverting runoff to these areas.
Impervious berms around the perimeter of the natural areas will retain water levels
to natural conditions.


FIG. 8.-Section A-A Drainage Plan






IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


0 Research study on impact of canal bottom deposits
benthicc oxygen demand and resuspension in "wet"
weather).

In the first category, the key program is to compare the pollu-
tant loads from two adjacent areas in a parking lot, one swept and
the other unswept. Comparable studies have been reported in the
literature for other geographic areas (including the vicinity of Or-
lando, Florida), but the wide variation in pollutant loads and re-
moval efficiency suggests the need for site-specific studies. In
Broward County, there are many areas that are heavily developed, and
where sweeping appears to be the only practical control. The field
studies results would be used as a guide for sweeping application and
frequency.

The desirability of a research study on the effect of canal bot-
tom deposits became apparent through the computer modeling efforts.
The dynamic model indicated that the nitrogen contribution to canal
waters was -significant (approximately one-fourth of total load) and
that the resuspension action appeared to be related to the amount of
pump inflows to the receiving canal (a localized scouring effect).
The proposed study (which should have applicability to south Florida
as a whole and possibly to other coastal canal areas in the United
States) would involve sampling of canal bottoms and consideration of
control alternatives such as dredging of canal bottoms in critical
areas and energy dissipation of pump discharges.

Water Quality Computer Models used in Broward County are: (1)
STORM (to predict runoff loads) and (2) a modified version of RECEIV
(to predict effect on receiving waters). The latter is a version de-
veloped specifically for this 208 which applies to canals with out-
flow control gates. This type of canal is prevalent in south Flor-
ida. Prior to applying the model in other similar flow regimes, pro-
gram streamlining is recommended to effect savings in computational
cost and better reflect water quality characteristics of the site,
such as localized resuspension of sediments.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations resulting from the 208 studies range from ex-
tensive stormwater detention systems to information programs, de-
pending on the specific needs of the area. Implementation of these
techniques should allow development and growth without significantly
impairment of water quality.

APPENDIX REFERENCES


1. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. "Nonpoint Source Con-
trol Needs" Element of Tampa Bay 208 Plan for Tampa Bay Re-
gional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, Florida, April
1978.






NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL 783


2. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. "Engineering Element
of Tallahassee-Leon County 208 Study" for Tallahassee -
Leon County Planning Council, Tallahassee, Florida, October
1977.

3. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. "Recommended Control
Techniques for the Caloosahatchee River Study Area" Draft
of Element of Southwest Florida 208 for Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council, Fort Myers, Florida, April 1978.

4. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. "Draft Report Bro-
ward County 208 Plan", prepared for Broward County Planning
Council, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, July 1978.

5. GKY & Associates, Inc. "Nonpoint Source and Water Quality
Modeling of the Canal System in Broward County, Florida",
MOD-18 Task Report, prepared for Broward County Planning
Council, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, June 1978.











PLANNING FOR AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL


W. Tom Pitts, P.E., M., A.S.C.E.*
F. A. Eidsness, Jr., Director of Planning*

INTRODUCTION
The Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments, a designated Area-
wide Waste Management Planning Agency under Section 208 of P.L.
92-500, conducted an extensive analysis of the impacts of irrigated
agriculture on water quality in the region and identified technical
and institutional requirements for control of pollutants from irri-
gated agriculture. The region contains 500,000 acres of irrigated
agriculture, which accounts for approximately 90 percent of the total
water demand in the region. In addition to the agricultural source
analysis conducted as part of the 208 Program, a research and develop-
ment project funded by EPA, Region VIII, allowed analysis of the
effectiveness of Best Management Practices on agricultural pollution
in the region, and identification of the institutional requirements
for implementing the Best Management Practices program. This paper
presents a highly-condensed summary of that program emphasizing
critical institutional arrangements necessary to implement an agri-
cultural pollution control program.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS: IMPACTS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
The technical analysis for agricultural pollution control problems
in the region focused on two areas: 1. Defining the impacts of
irrigated agriculture on the water quality and hydrology within the
region; 2. Identifying Best Management Practices which could reduce
the discharge of pollutants from irrigated agricultural land in the
region.

As indicated in Table 1, irrigated agriculture is the primary source
of total dissolved solids and suspended solids entering streams in
the region, and a primary source of nutrients. This must be con-
sidered in the context of the water supply system in the region.
Within the streams there are over 100 diversion structures which
divert imported and native water from the stream system to supply
municipal, industrial, and agricultural water users. As a result of
agricultural irrigation, significant quantities of return flow are
generated and in many cases these return flows make up the total
supply to the stream. Relative to point sources, irrigated
Mr. Pitts is a Vice President with Toups Corporation, Loveland,
Colorado.
Mr. Eidsness is associated with the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of
Governments, Loveland, Colorado.


784

/j






AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL 785


TABLE 1: MASS EMISSION RATES FROM POINT AND NONPOINT
SOURCES IN THE LARIMER-WELD REGION


WASTE SOURCE TOTAL POLLUTANT LOAD (Tons Per
Year) (a)
SUSPENDED TOTAL
BODg SOLIDS NITROGEN TDS

Municipal 2,160 2,670 1,430 60,800

Industrial 530 570 660 18,600


Subtotal Point
Source


Irrigated Agriculture

Feedlots

Urban Runoff

Miscellaneous


Subtotal Nonpoint
Source


2,690


0

667

140

42


849


TOTAL 3,539


(a) Year 2000 development.


3,240


18,200

5,770

2,090

17


26,077


29,317


2,090


2,020

265

22

11


2,318


4,408


79,400


980,000

430

1,890

110


982,430


1,061,830


----






786 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


agriculture presently contributes approximately seven times the amount
of return flow to the streams. Municipal and industrial discharges
contribute approximately 46 mgd to the stream flows while irrigation
return flows contribute approximately 351 mgd to the streams. With-
out this return flow which occurs throughout the year many of
the streams would be dry on an intermittent basis.

The primary problems identified in the region were those identified
with discharge of excess salinity (total dissolved solids), nitrates,
and sediment. The primary factor contributing to the discharge of
total dissolved solids was the flow of excess irrigation water
across shallow shale formations. As this flow occurred, salts were
dissolved from the shale formations and subsequently discharged to
streams. Nitrate problems are associated with application of manure
from feedlots in combination with commercial fertilizers applied to
irrigated land. In addition to irrigation agriculture, the region
produces approximately 1 million head of fattened cattle on feed-
lots each year. Large quantities of manure are available for re-
cycling on farm lands in the region. Farmers under-estimate the
fertilizer value of the manure and apply commercial fertilizer and
nitrate-laden ground water in addition to the manure. Discharge of
excess sediment was limited to a few areas within the region where
irrigation was conducted adjacent to the stream banks. This is not
normally the case throughout the region, as in most areas the flood
plain provides a buffer zone.
Best Management Practices were analyzed in light of the controllable
and non-controllable variables affecting the discharge of pollutants
from irrigated agricultural land. The overall objective was to
intervene with Best Management Practices to reduce the discharge of
pollutants. Best Management Practices considered in the region
were primarily those associated with water conservation measures.
Those considered included ditch canal and lateral lining, sprinkler
systems, irrigation water scheduling, sediment ponds, tailwater
recycling, buffer strips, soil and water testing for nitrogen
budgeting, and others. Best Management Practices were evaluated
in terms of not only cost and effectiveness, but also acceptance
by farmers based on previously-implemented soil and water conserva-
tion programs. The end result was a set of recommended BMP's which -
if implemented could effectively reduce the discharge of pollutants
within the region.

INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS
The institutional structure for implementation of agricultural pollu-
tant control programs did not exist in a cohesive form capable of
implementing an agricultural pollution control program. The
Federal ASCS and SCS had on-going programs assigned to implement
soil and water conservation measures in the region; however, these
programs had never in the past considered any pollution control
benefits associated with implementation of those programs. General
purpose local governments had essentially no involvement in agricul
tural programs; state agencies, principally the State Soil Conser-
vation Board, had been involved in implementation of soil and


3j






AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL


water conservation programs but had not dealt with agricultural pollu-
tion control programs. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission
had some experience in point source control, but no experience with
the agricultural community. No planning had been done by any State,
Federal, or local agency for implementation of agricultural pollution
control programs. Soil Conservation Districts which had traditionally
been the local agency responsible for implementation of soil and
water conservation programs had no expertise in agricultural pollu-
tion control. Coordination among agencies responsible for pollution
control and those which had traditionally implemented agricultural
soil and water conservation programs was limited at all levels of
government.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE

The 208 Plan facilitated integration of technical and institutional
requirements for an agricultural pollution control program in the
region. Once technical requirements for program implementation were
defined, the institutional groundwork for implementation of the pro-
,gram was initiated. Institutional requirements were set forth in
terms of planning, management, operations, and regulation. These
four assignments had to be made to insure implementation of the 208
Program. An extensive analysis was conducted of existing institu-
tional arrangements associated with implementation of soil and water
conservation programs. A fundamental feature of the analysis was
that the agricultural pollution control analysis was conducted as an
integral part of the analysis for all point and nonpoint source
control requirements in the region.

PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS

The technical and institutional analyses were combined into a set of
principles and concepts which guided the development of the institu-
tional strategy for implementation of the agricultural pollution
control program. These principals and concepts were designed in
accordance with the four major planning areas associated with agricul-
tural pollution control and other pollution control in the region,
i.e., planning, management, operations, and regulation. The
principals and concepts for the agricultural pollution control
program are presented below.

AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL
PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS
AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES FOR LARIMER
AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO

PLANNING:

1. The level of technology presently available concerning effec-
tiveness of agricultural pollution control measures is in-
adequate to assure that investments by government and individual
farmers will result in attainment of water quality goals.






IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


2. Many of the so-called Best Management Practices are those prac-
tices which have been implemented by soil conservation districts
for the purpose of soil and water conservation for many years.
However, the value of these measures as pollution control
measures for water quality improvement have not been adequately
tested and the cost effectiveness of these measures as pollution
control measures cannot be fully measured. This is especially
true with regard to dissolved pollutants such as salinity and
nitrates.
3. Because Best Management Practices have not been widely evaluated
for water quality improvement, there is a need for implementation
of demonstration projects to evaluate the true cost and effec-
tiveness of BMP's as water quality control measures prior to
full-scale mandatory implementation.
4. Planning and development activities should precede areawide
full implementation and be sufficiently complete to serve as
a basis for predicting results in water quality terms that can
be expected from the application of specific implementation
programs.
5. All water pollution control programs in the region should be
coordinated, including those from municipal and industrial
point sources, all irrigated and non-irrigated agriculture.
Agencies assigned tasks in the irrigated agricultural program
should have sufficient land use management power when viewed
in light of the overall requirements of 208 implementation.
6. Unlike institutional arrangements to assure implementation of the
program for municipal and industrial point sources and urban
runoff control; flexibility in assignment of implementation
responsibility, i.e., areawide planning, management, operations,
and regulations, should be maintained for agricultural source
control during the initial implementation phase involving
| testing and demonstration of BMP's for water quality improvements
and determination of distribution of costs and benefits.
7. Program funding and the distribution of program costs should
recognize the responsibilities of those who benefit from BMP
implementation as well as non-water quality benefits that
may arise when polluters are asked to help pay for pollution
abatement programs. Likewise, the local area's ability to pay
must be determined.
8. Determining the cost effectiveness of agricultural pollution
control programs will be dependent on defining:

A. Physical characteristics of the irrigated land;

B. Irrigation practices;
C. Water quality problems resulting from the combination
of practices and physical characteristics;


ij






AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL


D. The potential for reducing wasteloads by applying
specific Best Management Practices;

E. The cost of those Best Management Practices.

9. Until Best Management Practices are tested and evaluated under
field conditions, there will be no rational basis for determining
a cost-sharing formula to distribute pollution control costs
between farmers and government.

10. Continued areawide planning should be carried out in designated
208 regions by local COG's to assure full integration of Federal,
State, and local resources into the program. The State 208 Unit
should provide first-hand planning in non-designated areas of the
State with statewide support and leadership to assure continuity
and program direction.

Management:

1. No new forms of institutional structures for agricultural pollu-
tion control will be necessary at this time.

2. Local control over the program and local responsibilities for
managing implementation consistent with other demands of the
area is a fundamental necessity for successful implementation of
an agricultural pollution control program.

3. Existing institutional agencies within local COG planning
regions have sufficient powers and capabilities for the most
part to perform the required tasks of the 208 Program. Existing
local agencies should be assigned the primary functional
activities, i.e., planning, management, and operations, with
support from existing Federal and State agencies.

4. Because of their broad powers and ability to coordinate water
quality programs with other governmental activities, general
purpose local governments should be in charge of program imple-
mentation wherever possible.

5. Management agencies should delegate operational activities to
qualified agencies via inter-governmental and/or private contracts
to the greatest extent possible. This assures availability of
the required implementation skills by making maximum use of
existing institutional structures and service organizations.

6. County and City general purpose governments should be assigned
management responsibilities and should have primary respon-
sibilities for meeting the requirements of the implementation
plan.

7. Inter-governmental contracts should be developed between manage-
ment agencies and soil conservation districts as operational
agencies.






IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


8. In order to implement a locally-controlled program involving
general purpose county governments, it will be necessary that
stronger political and institutional ties be created between the
agricultural community and the county.
9. A technical advisory committee should be appointed by the counties
to review and evaluate planning, management, operational, and
regulatory functions and recommend appropriate courses of action
to elected officials.

OPERATIONS:
1. Soil Conservation Districts in cooperation with County Agricul-
tural Committees should be operational agencies with a strong
voice in determining or recommending BMP's for agriculture in
accordance with 208 Plan provisions specifying actions for
pollution control.

2. Soil Conservation Districts and County Agricultural Councils and
Committees should play a key role in plan preparation, mainte-
nance, management, and operation functions of implementing
agricultural pollution control strategies.

REGULATORY

1. Initial compliance requirements should be voluntary with manda-
tory controls considered only after technical and economic
conclusions are firm.

THE PHASING APPROACH

Out of the principles and concepts emerged the overall concept of a
phased program of agricultural pollution control. Phase 1 involves
initial 208 Planning which is now complete. Phase 2 involves imple-
mentation of demonstration projects in the region for the purposes of:
1. Field testing the effectiveness of best management practices as
agricultural pollution control measures, and 2. Testing the effec-
tiveness of institutional relationships and assignments defined in
the initial planning process. Phase 3 will involve full-scale imple-
mentation of the program in the region to achieve maximum feasible
pollution control from agricultural sources provided that Phase 2
indicates that agricultural pollution control programs are cost
effective.
Table 2 indicates the institutional assignments of planning, manage-
ment, operations, and regulation for Phase 2 and Phase 3. Planning
will continue to be a function of the designated 208 planning agency.
Management agency responsibility has been assigned to the Counties
for the following reasons:

1. General purpose governments have the powers, including land
use powers, needed for program implementation;


1






AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL


TABLE 2: INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY


INSTITUTIONAL
FUNCTION


RECOMMENDED


PHASE 2(1)
Larimer-Weld
Regional Council of
Governments


Counties
Cities


S.C.D.'s
(S.C.S. and
S.C. Brd. in
key support
roles)

State Health
Department
County Health
Department


PHASE 3(2)
Larimer-Weld
Regional Council of
Governments


Counties
Cities


S.C.D.'s
(S.C.S. and
S.C. Brd. in
key support
roles)

State Health
Department
County Health
Department


(1) Demonstrative phase voluntary implementation through ongoing
cost sharing programs but with water quality emphasis.
(2) Aggressive full-scale implementation. Mandatory programs
may be justified after farmer acceptance of need.


2. Assignment of the counties as management agencies is
consistent with other elements of the 208 Program.
General purpose local governments, including cities,
have been assigned management agency responsibilities
for all pollution control programs in the Larimer-Weld
region to insure coordination of all point and nonpoint
source programs.

3. The "pass-through" concept will allow delegation of respon-
sibilities to the Soil Conservation Districts for imple-
mentation, establishment of priorities, self regulation,
and monitoring through specific inter-governmental
agreements with the Counties.

4. The Counties can function as a powerful, politically-
responsible buffer between regulatory agencies and the
Soil Conservation Districts.

The pass-through concept allows the SCD's to function as operational
agencies including the establishment of local priorities for imple-
mentation of agricultural pollution-control programs. Application
of this concept allows maximum use of experienced local agencies to
carry on operational functions while reserving primary management


Planning



Management


Operations




Regulatory





792 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES

responsibilities to general purpose local governments.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PHASE 2 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Technical information indicates that demonstration projects are
needed to determine the cost effectiveness of agricultural pollution
control programs before broad-scale implementation takes place in the
region. As part of the effectiveness, these institutional arrange-
ments recommended above must be tested during a limited scale
demonstration phase. The institutional structure for the demon-
stration phase is presented in Figure 1.
A common characteristic of all pollution control programs evolving
from the Larimer-Weld 208 is that no new organizations were required
to carry out the planning, management, operations, and regulatory
functions. This applies to agricultural pollution control. The
recommended arrangement combines the expertise of agricultural
agencies, primarily the Soil Conservation Districts, Soil Conservation
Service, State Soil Conservation Board, with the expertise in
agricultural pollution control gained through the 208 Planning process.
It is anticipated, however, that some additional training in water
quality aspects of agricultural programs will be necessary for State
Soil Conservation Board and SCS personnel.
SUMMARY
The combined technical and institutional analysis conducted as a part
of the Larimer-Weld 208 Program has resulted in a definition of the
technical, requirements and the institutional requirements necessary to
implement agricultural pollution control programs. Because of un-
certainties regarding the effectiveness of traditional water and
soil conservation measures as pollution control measures, demonstra-
tion projects were recommended on a smaller-than-regional scale to
test the effectiveness in the field. In parallel, demonstration
projects will test the effectiveness of the institutional arrange-
ments recommended to insure the overall effectiveness of the program
prior to full-scale implementation.












i






AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL






FIGURE 1: INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE FOR
AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
PHASE 2






IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Toups Corporation. Water Quality Impacts of Irrigated Agriculture
(Executive Summary). (LWRCOG, April 1977). 65 pages.

Briscoe, Maphis, Murray, and Lamont, Inc. Institutional Inventory
for 208 Functions. (LWRCOG, April 1977). 87 pages.

Toups Corporation. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation -
Waste Management and Resource Recovery. (LWRCOG, July 1977).
96 pages.

Briscoe, Maphis, Murray, and Lament, Inc. Institutional and
Financial Recommendations for Control of Pollutants from
Nonpoint Sources and Municipal and Industrial Point Sources.
(LWRCOG, January 1978). 149 pages.

Briscoe, Maphis, Murray, and Lamont, Inc. Institutional and
Financial Recommendations for Control of Pollutants from
Irrigated Agriculture. (LWRCOG, November 1977). 99 pages

Toups Corporation. Nonpoint Source Control Analysis and Recommen-
dations. (LWRCOG, November 1977). 119 pages.

Toups Corporation. Alternative Technical Strategies for Achieving
National Water Quality Goals in Larimer and Weld Counties,
Colorado. (LWRCOG, January 1978).

Toups Corporation. Technical Implementation Requirements for
Achieving Best Management Practices in the Larimer-Weld
Region, Colorado. (LWRCOG, April 1978). 17 pages.

Toups Corporation. Best Management Practices for Irrigated
Agriculture in the Larimer-Weld Region, Colorado -
Analysis and Recommendations. (LWRCOG, April 1978).

Briscoe, Maphis, Murray, and Lamont, Ihc. Proposal for Management
Agency Requirements 208 Plan Implementation. (LWRCOG,
October 1977). 11 pages.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs