Federal land use planning legislation was once again marched up the hill in 1975 and then marched down again. In time, Congress may or may not pass such legislation; meanwhile, land use planning is creeping into the system, some under federal auspices and still more under direct state programs. A few of the current federal proposals and programs that have particular significance for land use are discussed here, while independent state and local actions are discussed in the article that follows.
The year 1975 was to be the year for comprehensive federal land use legislation. It was believed that a new Congress, full of good intentions, would surely enact the long-discussed legislation, and the Ford Administration was thought to be sympathetic to such an endeavor. The Interior Department whipped together an administration bill while successfully fending off bureaucratic intruders from other agencies. The proposals offered by the administration and by House and Senate leaders differed in substantial respects, but the concept of offering grants to the states for the preparation of their own plans was at the heart of each of them.
In the first quarter of 1975, however, the administration's ardor cooled. Citing budgetary constraints, the White House refused to endorse the Interior Department's bill. The battle then focused on a bill put forward by Rep. Morris K. Udall (Arizona Democrat). Embarrassed officials of the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found themselves opposing legislation quite similar to that which they previously had endorsed. Other opposition to Udall's proposal came from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and from such resource industries as forest products and mining. Support from environmentalists and some developers was insufficient to sway the House, and the bill went down to defeat in committee. Late in the year Sen. Jackson (Washington Democrat) still talked of bringing his own version forward. His tactic was to include within the broader bill a provision for siting energy facilities that was sought by the administration. However, when the prospects for action seemed dim, Sen. Edmund Muskie (Maine Democrat) turned to an examination of the air and water pollution acts as a basis for more comprehensive land use planning.
Water pollution and land use. Under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, the federal government has encouraged local communities to develop areawide waste management plans. By this provision, the state government identifies areas and designates a local agency to receive federal funds and to do the planning. Unlike many such efforts, these plans do not simply gather dust on the shelf. They are used, in conjunction with construction grants provided under Section 201 of the same act, to guide the building of waste treatment facilities.
Grants under Section 201 finance the largest federal public works program currently under way. But their influence is not limited to sewage treatment nor to their local economic impact. Much like the interstate highway program that profoundly altered the development of many communities, the sewer program is presently doing the same. As some have jested, sewers are the underground highways of the future. Therefore, the planning effort that directs the application of these funds can have important implications for land use.
This effort soon may become even more important. A District of Columbia court ruling in June (Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train) required that waste management planning must be done "wall-to-wall"—that is, that all areas of the state must be included unless the state certifies that excluded areas have no water quality problems. Moreover, the effective power of Section 208 planning has made it the focal point of attempts to coordinate other federal programs. At the same time, forebodings have been expressed about the burden carried by Section 208. Since the legislative authority is contained in the water quality law rather than in a comprehensive land use planning act, land planning activities are subordinated. There is concern that land use planning done under the aegis of water quality planning will be too narrowly conceived and may omit many criteria that would be included in a broader-based plan.
A notable aspect of Section 208 planning is that it relies heavily on areawide local agencies. Such agencies must conform to basinwide plans established by the state and must meet effluent standards set by federal law, but they have wide authority in design and location of facilities.
Another approach also gained some momentum over the year. Under the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the federal government makes grants to states for the development and administration of a management program for the coastal zone. This program is explicitly a land and water planning effort; its statutory objectives include both preservation and controlled development of coastal resources. Also explicit in the law is the requirement for consistency with other federal environmental legislation to protect air and water quality. The administrator of the act has taken this injunction seriously and has sought to coordinate planning with the Section 208 program discussed earlier, as well as with aspects of the Clean Air Act and the 701 program of the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) described below.
Like the water pollution control effort coastal zone planning funds also provide for an implementation phase, but to date funding is not comparable to the waste treatment construction grants. However, proposals now before Congress may alter this. Fearing that coastal states will develop plans that emphasize protection and preservation at the expense of energy facilities—especially those relating to offshore oil development—proposals have been made in the Congress for federal impact aid to states. At the time of writing none of these proposals had succeeded. Should they ever do so, coastal zone planning would gain powerful impetus, but at a cost that some environmentalists feel is much too high.
Air pollution and land use regulations. At the beginning of 1975 it appeared that efforts to enforce air quality standards would also involve the federal government in land use controls. Early in the year the EPA proposed to publish so-called indirect source regulations that would have provided for federal pre-construction review of transportation and commercial parking facilities as a means of controlling air pollution. Local governments were alarmed, and congressional opposition forced withdrawal of the proposed regulations. Clearly the EPA would like states to assume responsibility for what should be local decisions to maintain air quality, but it faces a dilemma where states fail to act. Meanwhile, some critics have wondered whether actions against parking and transportation facilities taken in the name of air pollution control may not be encouraging urban sprawl and the wasteful use of energy and other resources.
A still more powerful potential for affecting land use is inherent in the court-ordered air quality nondegradation ruling. Under this ruling, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1973, the EPA was directed to take measures to preserve the air quality in unpolluted areas even though it bettered existing federal standards. The EPA set about its task unenthusiastically, proposing three categories of lands whose quality would be respectively (1) preserved, (2) allowed to change moderately, or (3) allowed to deteriorate to national standards. Designation of the areas is left to the states. At the same time the EPA sought legislative relief from the ruling. Congress has not yet spoken with finality, but it appears likely to retain some form of nondegradation provision. Since almost any development in a pristine area is likely to be incompatible with such a provision, the rule could have profound land use implications, blocking development in empty areas while intensifying it in dirty ones. An argument can be made for more concentrated development, but in this case that pattern may emerge as an unconsidered result of an air pollution ruling.
Another federal planning program with special implications for land use is the authority provided under Section 701 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. This section provides for grants to local units of government for comprehensive planning, and, under existing regulations, such plans must include a land use element. In scope, Section 701 planning is much broader than the other federally supported efforts described earlier, and it might logically be the focus of various other land planning efforts. Serious questions have been raised about the effectiveness of Section 701 planning, however, and HUD was in the process of evaluating it internally as the year progressed.
Numerous other federal programs of long standing also have significance for land use. It is clear that, even in the absence of a federal land use planning act, there will continue to be substantial federal involvement in land planning. At the same time the main purpose of federal land use planning legislation—to get the states to plan—is already being met by states acting on their own initiatives.
A version of this article appeared in print in the Winter 1976 issue of Resources magazine.
