CAN SECTION 208 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT SERVE AS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR BOTH WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND GROWTH- MANAGEMENT?
Section I Introduction
The Clean Water Act, PL 92-500, was adopted by Congress in 1972 The passage of the legislation was the culmination of many Acts of legislation created to protect the waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act is a strongly worded document intended to clean up and prevent future degradation of the nation's waters, which have suffered pollution from industrial, municipal, agricultural and other forms of both point and non-point pollution.
Section 101 (a) of Title I of the Act clearly defines the goals of
DECLARATION OF GOALS AND POLICY
Sec. 101. (a) The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In order to achieve tl\Ls objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this Act -
(1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;
(2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983;
(3) it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited;
(4) it is the national policy that Federal financial assistance be provided to construct publicly owned waste treatment works;
(5) it is the national policy that areawide waste treatment management planning processes be developed and implemented to assure adequate control of sources of pollutants in each State; and
(6) it is national policy that a major research and demonstration effort be made to develop technology necessary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone, and the oceans.
The Clean Water Act is substantially different from earlier water pollution laws. Earlier attempts at controlling water pollution either provided monies for improving municipal sewage discharges, or penalized industrial pollution sources. The scope of The Clean Water Act is much broader than earlier legislation. PL 92-500 provides for water quality monitoring, enforcement, planning, permitting, land use-water quality related studies, water use and conservation studies, and nearly any other water quality consideration imaginable. The concept of the Law then is to provide not only programs for improvement of existing water quality problems, but to provide as well a body of knowledge and organizational framework to avoid problems in the future. The Law then takes a proactive as well as reactive stance to problems. Planning therefore is an essential mechanism in the process of the Clean Water Act.
Of particular interest and importance to those of us in the planning profession is Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, Areawide Waste Treatment Management. This section provides for water quality
improvement and control of potential water pollution sources. The em-
phasis of Section 2 08 is to provide for plans, and a continuing planning process, which will delineate water quality needs, programs of improve ment, and set forth a management structure to carry out the recommendations of the plans.
The object of this Studio III project is to research and investigate Section 20 8 of the Clean Water Act; to understand the intent and interpretation of the law, to note the resultant planning efforts of 208, and then to evaluate the effectiveness of 208 planning as both a water quality management tool, and as a tool to be used in the growth manage ment process.
The scope of this study will encompass Section 208 and its efforts and application in Colorado. The study focuses its efforts in these areas:
1) Research of Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, the legislation and its interpretation.
2) Investigation of the current status of 2 08 planning in Colorado; some historical perspectives, and 20 8 planning efforts. The ability of the plans to serve as water quality and growth management tools.
3) Evaluation of the 208 program in Colorado, and suggestions
for program improvement.
Of particular interest in this study is the investigation of 20 8 planning as it relates to growth management. Does Section 2 08 provide a framework for growth management through water quality concerns? Have the plans produced in Colorado addressed growth management?
How do 2 08 plans coordinate with other planning efforts, i.e. comprehensive land use plans? This is a particularly critical area of study. The Clean Water Act sets in motion the single largest public works effort in the history of the United States. The Construction Grants Funds allocated under Section 207 of the Clean Water Act provide that up to 43 billion dollars be spent nationwide for improvement to municipal waste treatment facilities.
The Clean Water Act then will provide seemingly limitless dollars for municipal improvements to wastewater treatment facilities. Access to utilities, including sewerage facilities, is one of the keys to growth and development. The potential for growth due to Federal funding of an essential utility, is a very real possibility. Does 208 address this very real concern? Funding of municipal waste treatment facilities is one of the charges of Section 20 8. All improvements to municipal facilities are to be sanctioned by areawide 208 plans.
My concern in regard to this issue emanates from another large federal program. The Federal Interstate Highway Act was designed to provide an emergency highway system that could quickly move goods
and people. As we now know the Federal Interstate Highway Act provided more than an emergency system; it provided the backbone of our current transportation system. Access provided by the Interstate Highway System has been one of the main contributors to the form that our current urban development has taken. Thus, I feel it is important to inspect the method by which Federal dollars for water quality improvement will be distributed. Will adequate land use and community development concerns be considered?
Section II 20 8: The Law and Subsequent Interpretation.
In order to gain an understanding of Areawide Waste Treatment Management as set forth in Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, it is necessary to research the legislation and its subsequent interpretation.
Section 208 is an historic page in the annals of Federal Law and is of particular interest to those in the planning field. The Section is titled "Areawide Waste Treatment Management" the concept of which is to create a continuing planning process for water quality for the entire surface area of the United States. Section 208 is the first Federal program designed to create a nationwide planning effort. The rationale for such a comprehensive effort is the scope of the Clean Water Act.
The Act recognizes the relationship of various land uses to water quality. Section 208 then must prescribe a method of dealing with all of the potential forms of water pollution. 208 (b) 1 (A) describes this responsibility:
(b) (1) (A) Not later than one year after the date of designation of any organization under subsection (a) of this section such organization shall have in operation a continuing areawide waste treatment management planning process consistent with section 201 of this Act. Plans prepared in accordance with this process shall contain alternatives for waste treatment management, and be applicable to all wastes generated within the area involved. The initial plan prepared in accordance with such process shall be certified by the Governor and
submitted to the Administrator not later than two years after the planning process is in operation.
Section 208 (b) 2 (A-K) further describes the specific concerns to be addressed in every 208 plan nationwide:
(2) Any plan prepared under such process shall include, but not be limited to -
(A) the identification of treatment works necessary to meet the anticipated municipal and industrial waste treatment needs of the area over a twenty-year period, annually updated (including an analysis of alternative waste treatment systems), including any requirements for the acquisition of land for treatment purposes; the necessary waste water collection and urban storm water runoff systems; and a program to provide the necessary financial arrangements for the development of such treatment works, and an identification of open space and recreation opportunities that can be expected to result from improved water quality, including consideration of potential use of lands associated with treatment works and increased access to water-based recreation;
(b) the establishment of construction priorities for such treatment works and time schedules for the initiation and completion of all treatment works;
(C) the establishment of a regulatory program to -
(i) implement the waste treatment management requirements of section 201(c).
(ii) regulate the location, modification, and construction of any facilities within such area which may result in any discharge in such area, and
(iii) assure that any industrial or commercial waste discharged into any treatment works in such area meet applicable pretreatment requirements;
(D) the identification of those agencies necessary to construct, operate, and maintain all facilities required by the plan and otherwise to carry out the plan;
(E) the identification of the measures necessary to carry out the plan (including financing), the period of time necessary to carry out the plan, the costs of carrying out the plan within such time, and the economic, social, and environmental impact of carrying out the plan within such time;
(F) a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, agriculturally and silviculturally related nonpoint sources of pollution, including return flows from irrigated agriculture, and thier cumulative effects, runoff from manure disposal areas, and from land used for livestock and crop production, and (ii) 'set forth procedures and methods (including land use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources;
(G) a process of (i) identify, if appropriate, mine-related sources of pollution including new, current, and abandoned surface and underground mine runoff, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (including land use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources;
(H) a process to (i) identify construction activity related sources of pollution, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (including land use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources;
(I) a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, salt water intrusion into rivers, lakes, and estuaries resulting from reduction of fresh water flow from any cause, including irrigation, obstruction, ground water extraction, and diversion, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods to control such intrusion to the extent feasible where such procedures and methods are otherwise a part of the waste treatment management plan;
(]) a process to control the disposition of all residual waste generated in such area which could affect water quality; and
(K) a process to control the disposal of pollutants on land or in subsurface excavations within such area to protect ground and surface water quality.
It is clearly established then that 208 plans must relate all of the above mentioned types of pollution, to policies, plans, and programs for water quality improvement. Section 20 8 then is a broad water quality improvement concept, aimed not at one problem, but at all
existing, past, and potential water quality problems and their sources.
Section 208 is innovative legislation from the management point of view as well as from the pollution abatement concept. 208 stipulates that identification of, and improvement programs for water quality problems be administered and managed at the regional level. Further, the States are to identify areas of substantial water quality problems within their boundaries. Those areas of substantial water quality problems are to receive funding directly from the Federal government for establishment of 208 plans for water quality improvement. Areas of less substantial problems will have State assistance in creation of 208 plans. Section 208(a)(2) and (6) reflect these levels of designation.
(2) The Governor of each State, within sixty days after publication of the guidelines issued pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall identify each area within the State which, as a result of urban-industrial concentrations or other factors, has substantial water quality control problems. Not later than one hundred-twenty days following such identification and after consultation with appropriate elected and other officials of local governments having juridiction in such areas, the Governor shall designate (A) the boundaries of each such area, and (B) a single representative organization, including elected officials from local governments or their designees, capable of developing effective areawide waste treatment management plans for such area.
The Governor may in the same manner at any later time identify any additional area (or modify an existing area) for which he determines areawide waste treatment management to be appropriate, designate the boundaries of such area, and designate an organization capable of developing effective areawide waste treatment management plans for such area.
(6) The State shall act as a planning agency for all portions of such State which are not designated under paragraphs (2), (3), or (4) of this subsection.
Further, Section 208 (c) (1) describes the management concept:
(c) (1) The Governor of each State, in consultation with the planning agency designated under subsection (a) of this section, at the time a plan is submitted to the Administrator, shall designate one or more waste treatment management agencies (which may be an existing or newly created local, regional or State agency or potential subdivision) for each area designated under subsection (a) of this section and submit such designations to the Administrator.
Thus, the "management agency" concept is created. The responsibilities of a management agency are described in 2 08 (c) 2 :
(2) The Administrator shall accept such designation, unless, within 120 days of such designation, he finds that the designated agency (or agencies) does not have adequate authority -
(A) to carry out appropriate portions of an areawide waste treatment management plan developed under subsection (b) of this section;
(B) to manage effectively waste treatment works and related facilities serving such area in conformance with any plan required by subsection (b) of this section;
(C) directly or by contract, to design and construct new works, and to operate and maintain new and existing works as required by any plan developed pursuant to subsection (b) of this section;
(D) to accept and utilize grants, or other funds from any source, for waste treatment management purposes;
(E) to raise revenues, including the assessment of waste treatment charges;
(F) to incur short-and long-term indebtedness;
(G) to assure in implementation of an areawide waste treatment management plan that each participating community pays its proportionate share of treatment costs;
(H) to refuse to receive any wastes from any municipality or subdivision thereof, which does not comply with any provisions of an approved plan under this section applicable to such area; and
(I) to accept for treatment industrial wastes.
The sections I have quoted in the preceeding paragraphs are the heart and soul of 208 planning. The thrust of 208 is to create a planning process for the improvement of water quality. The process delineates:
1) Designation, by the State, of areas of greatest water quality concern.
2) That all areas of the State shall develop areawide plans via a regional agency. Nondesignated areas having plans developed by a State agency.
3) That the plans will delineate all concerns for water quality improvement.
4) That the plans will delineate agencies within the planning area for control of water quality, including responsibility for necessary programs and funding.
Section 208 (d) further states that only management agencies as designated in 2 08 plans shall be eligible for funding of programs through the Clean Water Act. Section 208 closes as most other sections of Federal Acts close, monies for achievement of the goals of the section are described. In the closing sub-sections of 208, nearly one billion dollars is granted for use in 20 8 planning efforts. No local match is
I believe that Section 208 of the Clean Water Act is a very comprehensive attempt to create planning for the abatement of water pollution. The monies for extensive planning efforts are made available at 100% of cost from the Federal government, a tremendous incentive. The local management and planning concept is very sound in basis. It allows the locals to assess needs, and suggest solutions to water quality problems; if the needs and solutions are judged inadequate by the State or Federal Government, the locals will be required to reassess, and readdress inadequacies, and create better plans. Without approved 208 plans funding for water quality improvement programs, including construction grants for sewers and treatment facilities, may be denied. Thus, Section 208 stands as the heart and soul of the Clean Water Act; 208 is to define problems and direct funding to those problems.
Since the writing of the Clean Water Act in 1972 many interpretations of Section 208 have come forward. The most important interpretation is that contained in the Federal Register. The Federal Register is the official interpretation of Federal legislation. The Federal Register for Friday November 28, 1975, sets forth the official rules and regulations for Section 208. These rules and regulations are found in 40 C.F.R. Parts 130 and 131. Part 130.1 describes the institutional relationships necessary to achieve the goals of 20 8 and the Act Part 131
describes in detail the contents of 208 plans. The main thrust of 208
9) Non-Point Source Control Needs.
10) Residual Waste Control Needs.
11) Urban and Industrial Stormwater Runoff Needs.
12) Target Abatement Dates.
13) Regulatory Programs.
14) Management Agencies.
15) Environment, Social, Economic Impact.
The rules and regulations governing 208 plan content seem to be quite well defined. The level of detail of each of the above mentioned sections is determined by the need for the specific element.
I believe the Rules and Regulations that guide Section 20 8 are quite specific. The Who, What, When, Where, and How, are clearly defined by Parts 130 and 131 of 40 C.F. R. The Clean Water Act, as mentioned previously, is also a clearly worded document. This study will now investigate what Section 208 has yielded in terms of a planning process and resultant Water Quality Management Plans in Colo-
is to create a planning process. The law, as earlier noted, is concerned with four measures to create the process.
1) All areas of the State shall have 20 8 plans.
2) Areas of most serious concern shall be designated as such, and perform their own planning; less serious areas shall have plans prepared by the States.
3) The plans will delineate all concerns for water quality improvement.
4) The plans will delineate agencies for the management and control of water quality.
Let us now investigate how the rules and regulations interpret these measures. Part 130.13 (c) describes the concept of Designated Planning Region:
(c) The Govemor(s) shall designate a single representative organization capable of developing effective areawide plans in accordance with section 208 of the Act for each area designated pursuant to section 130.13(b). Each areawide planning agency shall:
(1) Be a representative organization whose membership shall include, but need not be limited to, elected officials of local governments or their designees having jurisdiction in the designated areawide planning area;
(2) Have waste treatment planning jurisdiction in the entire designated areawide planning area;
(3) Have the capability to have the water quality management planning process fully underway no later than one year after approval of the designation;
(4) Have the capability to complete the initial water quality management plan no later than two years after the planning process is in operation; and
(5) Have established procedures for adoption, review, and revision of plans and resolution of major issues, including procedures for public participation in the planning process.
Part 130.15 describes the Management Agency concept; parts (a),
(d) and (e) define the process.
(a) Upon completion and submission of a water quality management plan, the Governor shall designate Federal, State, interstate, regional, or local agency(ies) appropriate to carry out each of the provision(s) of the water quality management plan(s).
(d) The Regional Administrator shall accept and approve all designated management agency(ies) unless, within 120 days of a designation, he finds that, the agency(ies) does not have adequate authority, including the requirement that statutory and regulatory provisions required to implement the plan be adopted by the date of plan approval by the Regional Administrator, and capability, as required in section 131.11 (0) (2)
of this Chapter, to accomplish its assigned responsibilities under the plan. The Regional Administrator shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove such management agency designations in accordance with the same procedures to be used in approving water quality management plans (see Section 131.21 of this Chapter).
(e) The Regional Administrator may withdraw his approval made pursuant to Section 130. 15(d) in the event that a designated management agency(ies) fails to implement the provision(s) of an approved water quality management plan for which the agency(ies) is assigned responsibility.
With these definitions in hand several concepts of 20 8 become clear. First, a designated planning agency must represent a number of local governments, it must have planning jurisdiction for waste treatment in the area it represents, and must be able to update and revise
the plans. In short, the organization must be ongoing, and represent all areas involved. Second, a designated management agency must fulfill the requirements of the 208 plan, or lose designation. In short, if a management agency does not fulfill the requirements of the 208 plan it will lose its position as central administrator and funding recipient.
Part 130.34 describes the relationship of other local planning efforts to 20 8 plans:
(a) The process shall assure that State water quality management plans are coordinated, and shall describe the relationship with plans for designated areawide planning areas within the State, with planning required in adjacent States under section 208 of the Act, with affected State, local, and Federal programs, and other applicable resource and developmental planning including:
(1) State and local land use and development programs.
(2) Activities stemming from applicable Federal resource and developmental programs including:
(i) The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (Pub.
(ii) The Safe Drinking Water Act (Pub. L. 93-52 3) .
(iii) The Clean Air Act, as amended (Pub. L. 91-604).
(iv) The Coastal Zone Management Act (Pub. L. 92-583).
(v) The Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Act (Pub. L. 83-566).
(vi) The Rural Development Act of 1972 (Pub. L.
(vii) The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended (Pub. L. 88-578).
(viii) The National Historic Preservation Act (Pub.
L. 89-665) .
(ix) The Fish Restoration Act (Pub. L. 81-6 81) and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pub. L. 75-415).
(x) The Endangered Species Act (Pub. L. 93-205).
(xi) Wastewater Management Urban Studies Programs administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Pub.
L. 685, 1938, Pub. L. 429, 1913).
(xii) Transportation Planning administered by the Department of Transportation (Pub. L. 87-866, Pub. L. 93-366, Pub. L. 93-503).
(xiii) The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-383).
(xiv) Other Federally assisted planning and management programs.
Thus, coordination of 208 plans with Local, State, and Federal planning efforts is required. This is of particular significance in regard to 208's ability to function as a tool for growth management, and also assures that other Federal programs will be considered in the 208 effort.
Thus Part 130 of C.F.R. 40 describes the entities involved in the planning process, their responsibilities, and functional inter-relations. Part 131 C.F.R. 40 describes the preparation of 208 plans. The main subpart of 131 is 131.11 Plan Content. This section describes the necessary particulars of all 20 8 plans. According to 131.11 the following elements are to be included in all 208 plans:
1) Planning area boundaries.
2) Water Quality Assessment and Segment Classification.
3) Inventory and Projections.
4) Water Quality Standards.
5) Total Maximum Daily Loads and Wasteload Allocations.
6) Non-Point Source Assessment.
7) Municipal Waste Treatment Needs.
8) Industrial Waste Treatment Needs.
Section III 20 8: The Colorado Experience
In the last section of this treatise the Federal Clean Water Act, and in particular, the meaning and interpretation of Section 2 08 of the Act were studied. The purpose of this section will be to investigate 208 Water Quality Planning in Colorado. Included in this study will be a brief history of the 208 effort in Colorado, and a case study of the types of plans that resulted from the effort.
The Act, as cited earlier, requires the planning for 20 8 to occur on the regional level. The Act also states that a regional body already in existence may be designated as the 2 08 planning agency. It was decided that in order to promote a unified regional effort, that the Regional Councils of Government would be designated to carry forward the 208 program.
The 208 effort began in Colorado in the Spring of 1974. Governor Vanderhoof, following the guidance of Section 208, "designated" four Councils of Governments to perform independent 208 planning. In 1975 Governor Lamm designated two more Councils of Governments. These six Councils comprised the Front Range, and energy impacted areas of the Western Slope. These regions were, as the Act described, "Areas of Urban or Industrial Concentrations" A large share of
Colorado's 208 monies would go to these areas since they were considered to have the worst water quality problems. The designated regions were:
1) Denver Regional Council of Governments.
2) Pueblo Area Council of Governments.
3) Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments.
4) Larimer Weld Council of Governments.
5) Northwest Colorado Council of Governments.
6) Colorado West Area Council of Governments.
In addition to these six designated areas, nine "non-designated" 208 planning areas also following Council of Governments boundaries, were formed. The responsibility for planning in the non-designated areas was left to the State. In early 1976 Governor Lamm organized the 208 Executive Committee. The Executive Committee, comprised of various Division and Department representatives, was to guide the course of 208 planning and serve as an advisory and policy making group for the Governor, who is ultimately responsible for certifying all 208 plans at the State level. Among the various State agencies represented on the Executive Committee were, the Departments of Health, Natural Resources, Local Affairs, the Water Conservation Board, and the Division
One of the first acts of the 20 8 Executive Committee was to establish the 208 Coordinating Unit. The Coordinating Unit, located in the Department of Local Affairs was created to serve as staff to the Executive Committee. Specifically, the Coordinating Unit was charged with the responsibility of coordinating all 208 planning statewide, and as well, serve as the planning agency for the non-designated areas of the State. With this structure intact, the Executive Committee, and the Coordinating Unit began to design a framework for 208 planning statewide.
The Clean Water Act, and the associated rules and regulations which interpret the Act is quite clear in describing the contents of a 20 8 plan, only the format, and level of detail and concern is to be determined locally. The Act requires that specific governmental agencies be identified to carry out the implementation activities of each plan, these are the "management agencies" In Colorado particular emphasis has been placed on the "management system" concept. The 208 Executive Committee decided early in the 2 08 effort in Colorado to address the management concept, and investigate the responsibilities required and abilities necessary for proper management. The State Implementation Plan Strategy, published in May of 1977, presents the State view
of the importance of good management systems:
Section 208 of the Clean Water Act outlines an approach to the planning program which differs from others in that its orientation is toward management and implementation. The section sets the stage for water quality management with an areawide focus by establishing a process for defining a balanced program of controls over all present and future sources of pollutants and then by defining the institutional arrangements, authorities, and resources necessary to implement that program. This latter feature is generally referred to as the "management system," the part of the overall 208 program that has been regarded by many as essential to its success. Technical solutions alone cannot clean up the water without capable implementing governmental agencies, authorities, controls, and resources combined with a committed and involved public.
The Coordinating Unit further recognized that for a management system to be successful it must appoint as few management agencies as possible to maximize their effectiveness. The management agencies in turn should have the ability to relate both water quality and development issues to an overall planning framework. The following quote from the State Implementation Plan reflects these concepts:
A management system and its implementing agencies should:
* Reduce the number of management agencies to the extent practical through coordination arrangements or consolidation,
* Have the capability to relate point and nonpoint source decisions,
* Have the capability to relate growth and development and associated water quality management decisions ,
* Provide a reasonable base structure for other resource management programs, and
* Have the necessary authorities and staffing capabilities.
In early 1978 the 20 8 Coordinating Unit produced a document Guidelines for Structuring 208 Water Quality Management in Colorado. This document provided specific guidance designed to make incorporation of the above mentioned criteria and goals for a management agency possible. The following quote from the "Guidelines" describes the interrelations and responsibilities of various governmental agencies.
The management systems in Colorado's 208 plans should advocate a two-tier management structure with local general purpose governments having overall responsibility for implementation (management agencies) and with the special districts and private entities serving the management agency in a supporting role that of carrying out implementation activities (operating agencies) under the general direction of the local purpose governments. This hierarchy allows water quality management to build upon the general authorities and responsibilities of the cities and counties for both point and nonpoint sources. It also allows for using the expertise and capabilities of such governmental entities as sanitation districts, soil conservation districts, and irrigation districts as operating agencies on behalf of the cities and counties.
The Guidelines further describe why these levels of cooperation are preferred:
There are two basic reasons why general purpose local governments are the preferred alternative for carrying out the water quality program. First, the water quality program cannot be implemented independently
and without regard to other local programs. To be effective, it must be coordinated with all growth and development and other related urban service activities of the area. Since, for the most part, these services are being delivered by general purpose local governments, these agencies present a superior choice for implementing the program than would special service agencies which only address water quality control activities.
The second major reason why general purpose local governments should be in charge of the program is that institutionally, they possess the best set of powers and capabilities for accomplishing the task at hand. This is particularly true in certain cases involving nonpoint source pollutants, whose generation and characteristics are intimately related to decisions of how land is developed and used, and in guiding growth patterns to best accommodate water quality management needs.
Thus, the Guidelines for Structuring 208 Management do much to define the roles of various government entities in implementing and controlling water quality. The document also specifies how unincorporated areas and urban fringe areas relate to the management process. The following paragraphs describe the intergovernmental relations necessary:
Planning for wastewater services in those areas on the fringe of cities and towns should be coordinated between the county and city involved in order to link service needs with other growth and development activities.
In order to meet the Act's regulatory requirements, land use planning and control are central concerns of the management agencies. Colorado statutes neither specifically require nor deny extraterritorial land use planning in fringe areas. This presents a potential conflict between cities and counties experiencing pressures.
As fringe areas grow, so may disagreements over the source of continued services, conflicting development standards, conflicting community goals, responsibility for debt incurred prior to annexation, or creation of limited purpose agencies which become self-perpetuating.
City-county and county-county conflicts over service and planning in fringe areas can be avoided by delineation of an urban service area and promulgation of either an intergovernmental contract or joint resolution of responsibility. The size of the service area will vary with each community, and in some cases where growth is not anticipated, it may be determined on the basis of existing and proposed facilities.
Once the area has been defined through contract or resolution, a comprehensive land use plan should be developed jointly by the city and the county (as defined by the agreement) which includes service plans indicating location and level of service, service standards, a five-year capital improvements plan, and priorities for extension or phasing of services. Where other communities or districts are contained in the service area, they too, must be involved in the creation and review of the plans.
The Guidelines for Structuring 208 Management provide a specific framework for a management system; in addition the role of the management agency is well defined. The management concept set forth in Section 208 is of vital importance to implementation of the goals of the Clean Water Act; the structure for management that Colorado assumed is vital to understanding the form that 208 plans have taken in this State.
The emphasis on management systems in Colorado is designed to allow local governments to exert control over the factors which
effect water quality. This is particularly evident in reviewing the 2 08 plans in Colorado. The plans generally assume a format which sets forth the following sections:
1) Description of Planning Region.
2) Explanation of P. L. 92-500.
3) Current Water Quality Assessment.
4) Population Projections
5) Point and Non-Point Source Inventories.
6) Point and Non-Point Source Needs.
7) Management Systems.
The conceptual basis of the format is to provide information regarding the current state of water quality, to interject future needs due to changes in population and commerce and then project the needs of various communities for improvements, and the timing of such improvements. The management system is to provide an institutional framework which designates the decision making and regulatory authorities for controlling water quality and growth. This arrangement allows the local governments to control their growth and development in such a
manner as to meet the goals of the Act.
Colorado's 2 08 Plans
With an understanding of the importance of the management system in mind, this study will now consider the 208 plans that have been produced in Colorado. Rather than review all 208 plans in the State, this study will consider those plans which are unique or represent a particular school of thought in regard to 20 8 planning.
Of interest in this regard are the Denver Regional Council of Governments 208 plan, the Larimer Weld Council of Governments 208 plan, the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 208 plan, and the Colorado West Area Council of Governments. As well,a description of the format of the non-designated 2 08 plans will be included. These plans have been chosen due to their unique qualities. The D.R. C.O.G. 208 plan is an example of a 208 plan designed to fit into the context of a larger existing regional planning effort. The Larimer Weld 208 plan is an example of a 20 8 plan designed to create a larger regional planning effort. The Northwest Colorado Council of Government 2 08 plan is an example of how a water quality plan may supercede an existing regional plan. The Colorado West Area 20 8 plan is an example of a 208 planning failure. The non-designated area plans are an example of the basic framework necessary to create a reasonable 208 planning
process in such areas.
Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) 208 Plan
DRCOG was designated as the areawide 208 planning agency for the Denver Metropolitan area in 1974. In March of 197 5, DRCOG had completed a work plan and applied for an areawide 208 planning grant. The initial planning effort required two years; in July 1977 DRCOG formally adopted The Clean Water Plan.
The Clean Water Plan is essentially a document which describes the existent and future need for wastewater treatment facilities. This emphasis is due to the large wastewater flows of the Denver Metro area, and the impact of those flows on water quality. To this end, the DRCOG plan estimates the population of each drainage basin in the region and then notes the need for wastewater facilities improvements to meet year 2000 needs, and, as well, meet the requirements of the
Clean Water Act. The plan also makes nominal reference to non-point %
sources of pollution such as construction and stormwater runoff; the emphasis of the plan, however, is clearly in the realm cf treatment facilities for municipal sewage. This is quite realistic since Denver is a fast growing urban center in which the main water pollution concern is municipal wastewater.
The DRCOG 20 8 is intended to function within the larger context of the DRCOG Regional Growth and Development Plan. The
that the uses of the water will be protected, i.e. the degree of treatment necessary to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act will be planned for, and provided.
The goal of The Clean Water Plan is to construct, expand and maintain wastewater facilities within the context of the "Urban Service Areas" Within the Urban Service Areas specific management agencies are designated to assure that proper timing of facility needs to meet the goals of the Act are carried out. These needs speak specifically to the population served and protection of the receiving water. The needs of the receiving water are achieved by studying the drainage basin, observing the number of discharges (municipal facilities) and assigning effluent limitations ( amounts of nutrients and pollutants ) to each discharger.
The Clean Water Plan is a reasonable approach to 20 8 Water Quality Planning. The Water Quality aspect of the plan is a very sound and accepted approach. Each discharge to the waters realizes what the quality of their discharge must be to meet the criteria of uses for the water and goals of the Act. Coordinating this effort into the regional land use planning effort is also very sound. The concept is to encourage municipal facilities only in areas where growth will precipitate an orderly efficient, and environmentally sound urban development.
The success of the DRCOG 20 8 plan is dependent on several factors: how well the 208 plan fits into the regional growth and development plan; how well the regional growth and development plan is implemented; and finally, how well the designated management agencies carry out their functions in protecting area waters and planning for growth.
As stated earlier, The Clean Water Plan is an integral part of the regional growth and development plan. It has the effect of being an implementation device, designed to help achieve the "Urban Service Area" concept. Unfortunately, the largest problem involved in the DRCOG 2 08 plan is the political nature of the DRCOG regional growth plan. Since the Council of Governments is designed to be non-juris-dictional over its member governments, it serves mainly as an advisory body. Further, since the Council is dependent upon support from its member governments it does not tend to be overly critical of the actions of its members. Basically, what this means is that the regional growth plan, and therefore the 208 plan, is likely to reflect the wishes of the member governments. As a result, the concept of "Urban Service Areas" as defined in the DRCOG regional growth plan is very open to change. This changing and redefining of the Urban Service Area often results in something less than desirable regional goals for growth and development. This is quite evident in assessing the differences between
the DRCOG Urban Service Area map of 1975, and its counterpart in 1980. Many areas considered "Non-Urban" in 1975 have gained "Urban Service Area" stature in 1980. The DRCOG 208 plan then is tied to a regional plan which is less than ideal; within this framework it is difficult for 208 to function as a growth management tool. The power which regulates land-use and development lies with the local governments. If the DRCOG plan is to be effective, as a growth management tool, it must have the ability to deal with the local governments. This is the reason that the management agency concept is vital and important. The designation of local general purpose governments as management agencies, promotes land use and growth concerns by funding those agencies, which, generally perform land-use planning, and have growth and development concerns.
Water quality is the specific concern of 208 planning. The management agency concept of 208 for a proper implementation process.
The DRCOG 208 is very specific in relating these implementation responsibilities. These responsibilities include maintenance, operation and planning of municipal treatment facilities. Thus, the responsibilities for both water quality and land use planning are localized. The DRCOG plan becomes in essence a document which identifies responsibilities. Local governments are made aware of their responsibilities to
meet the goals of the Clean Water Act.
The organization of the Clean Water Plan, and its attempt to tie regional growth planning to utility extensions is admirable. Unfortunately, regional planning has no teeth, it is only advisory. Therefore the regulatory powers exerted by local governments will determine growth patterns. The major thrust of the DRCOG 208 will therefore be its recognition of management agencies; assignment of responsibilities for attaining the Clean Water Act goals of "fishable and swimmable" waters. The Clean Water Plan has been in operation for nearly three years; it has been successful in relating municipal facility needs to water quality objectives. While it was intended to guide some land use decisions through the "Urban Service Area" concept, lack of regulatory power has prevented its ability to be an effective regional growth management tool.
Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments 20 8 Plan
The Larimer Weld Regional Council of Governments was designated as the water quality planning agency for this two county area in 197 5. In May of 1975 LWCOG applied for and received a grant for areawide 208 planning. The LWCOG 208 plan investigated many phases of water quality and managerial concern; 32 months were spent preparing a draft plan. In September of 197 8 a final plan was adopted.
The Larimer Weld 208 plan required extensive investigation, and resulted in the production of 34 separate reports. These reports include:economic, social, and population analysis; studies of individual municipal facility's needs, institutional arrangements for 20 8; region wide and local land use studies and alternatives. Much of this work was necessitated due to the lack of information available in the region. LWCOG did not have a regionwide plan as DRCOG had in the Denver Metro region. Thus, an extensive effort defining not only water quality concerns, but overall regional planning concerns was necessitated.
As an integral component of the LWCOG 2 08 plan, studies identifying the nature and extent of population and economic growth were conducted. These growth projections were used to predict future land-use requirements in the two county area. Computerized land-use environmental and man-made systems suitability studies were conducted to determine the areas of the region most capable of accommodating future land uses. The environmental suitability studies ranked the importance of different geographically defined environmental characteristics, such as slope, surface hydrology, and vegetation and wildlife habitats, in terms of their potential effect on regional growth. Similarly, the man-made systems suitability studies ranked the importance of such factors as the planned capacity of water and sanitation districts in terms of their effect on regional growth.
Due to the nature of the Larimer Weld region, a very different strategy than that used in the DRCOG region emerged. Essentially, a facility plan was constructed for each municipal facility in the region. Since the region is large in size and the number of treatment plants few, little interaction between the various municipalities is necessary. Therefore, the emphasis on management of individual plants is very important, particularly in a region expecting rapid growth like Larimer -Weld. To this end LWCOG published a study of utility management.
The report, in particular, addresses the placement of utilities (i.e. sewers and treatment plants) in an economic frame of reference. The cost of facilities can be very high; often municipalities hope to increase tax revenues by extending services to a location which may not pay for extension of services in the long run. The intent of the report is to make small municipalities in a high-growth region, aware of the possible pitfalls of long distance service extensions. The following quotes from the study reflect this intent;
Careful utility planning is important because of the fact that the utility system and its operation are so closely linked with growth and development in the community. For instance, as new residential developments are built, new customers will be added to the existing system and additional volumes of wastewater will require treatment. To achieve the goals of efficiency and equity, it is important that new developments are not excessively expensive to serve, and that the costs of providing service extensions are identified and made the responsibility of the new developments. Advance planning of the utility system can help in assuring that new
customers can obtain service efficiently, at prices approximating the added costs imposed on the system as a whole, and when they need the service.
Not only is the wastewater system impacted by community events; conversely, the system has its own effects on the development of the community. Wastewater treatment capacity may pave the way for new development and growth. According to the design of the collection system, new growth may be encouraged to locate in particular areas rather than others. New growth may be repelled in the vicinity of the treatment plant. The treatment plant location, plant capacity, type of plant design, and layout of the collection system are all important factors in determining the community's costs of future operation, and in shaping the community's development pattern in the years ahead.
Although planning the wastewater utility to meet future community requirements is important, encouraging new development to meet the needs and constraints of the utility is equally important. The best utility planning possible will not assure continuing efficient, low cost service when there is no control over location of future land development and new demands for service. Pell mell expansion of plant capacity and collection lines can impose premature additional costs on both new developments and the system's existing customers. New land uses should be planned and encourage where services can be provided efficiently, and so that the existing users are not penalized due to premature plant expansion or unrecoverable collection line extension costs.
Sound planning can get the wastewater utility off in the right direction. However, due to the utility's expected long life, a set of management policies are needed to assure continued efficient and effective operation. On an ongoing basis, the community will have to decide where it will provide new services, how the collection system will be extended, who should pay for the extensions, how inflationary cost increases can be handled, and so on. Policies for dealing with these questions will be necessary to assure fair and uniform treatment of all customers and citizens, and to carry out the original plans for efficiently serving the public's needs for wastewater services.
The concept in these paragraphs is to make the municipalities aware of the need for good local planning, not just water quality planning, but also land-use and proper development practices. The means for implementing these concepts is to develop good planning as suggested in the State Guidelines for Structuring 208 Water Quality Man-agement, reviewed earlier. General purpose governments are encouraged to serve as management agencies and incorporate the 20 8 planning effort into the large overall planning effort.
In addition to this municipal strategy an extensive non-point pollution strategy was necessitated in the Larimer Weld region.
The region is highly agricultural and a tremendous agricultural pollution load is evident in the region's rivers. Agricultural pollution is not nearly as easy to control and reduce as municipal pollution. As well, the issue of water quality and agricultural water use is a political bomb shell. Since no direct source (point source) is evident in agricultural water returns, no permits or enforcement program is possible. The emphasis of the LWCOG agricultural strategy is twofold.
First to do extensive studies of B. M.P. 's ( Best Management Practices ) for agriculture then second, seek Rural Clean Water Program (R. C.W. P.) money, (Department of Agriculture) and hire the Soil Conservation Service to work in cooperation with local farmers to institute the B. M.P.'s. The success of this program hinges on the availability of money through
the R. C.W.P.
The goal of the LWCOG 20 8 plan is to create an awareness of the planning that a rapidly expanding area must perform to create quality development. The water quality issues are well addressed and the 208 provides specific guidance to each municipality in the urban areas of the counties, to help them meet the goals of the Clean Water Act. The plan attempts to create a regional data base for overall regional planning; it was the desire of the Larimer Weld COG to make the 208 part of an overall larger regional planning effort. To date this latter effort has not occurred.
The Larimer Weld 208 plan is a good example of a 2 08 plan designed for a rapidly growing region. In particular, the largest difficulty encountered by the 20 8 effort in Larimer and Weld counties was relating the 208 planning effort to a larger regional plan. Since no regional plan was existent the 20 8 plan was in a difficult position. Po-tentially, 208 could have been the driving force behind regional planning. The Larimer Weld council debated the merits of this approach and decided that building a regional plan on water quality constraints was unwise. The board recognized the need for a regional plan, but felt that other factors should be influential in determining regional growth and development.
The approach the LWCOG 208 adopted as a result of this decision is laudable. The 20 8 study specifically addressed the water
quality issues, both municipal and agricultural and set forth abatement programs to improve water quality. -These sections were then used by the locals in consideration of water related decisions. As well, the 208 plan encouraged the local governments to consider the costs of sprawl; this was the emphasis of the Utility Management Handbook. This appears to be a sound approach to encouraging local planning.
The Handbook urges cost consideration; to a small town the lure of the development dollar can be very tempting, the handbook, and, in part, the emphasis of the 208 plan calls for consideration of overall costs of supplying urban services to potential growth areas. The result is to encourage growth in a manner that is economically feasible; to do so encourages long term local planning.
The Larimer Weld 208 plan has been relatively successful. Water quality concerns have been addressed, and abatement programs provided. The growth management issue was addressed through a prac-ticle means; since no regional growth plan had been developed utility extensions and their costs were studied; nothing will arouse as much interest in a small community as the costs of growth.
Northwest Colorado Council Of Governments 2 08 Plan
NWCOG was designated as the areawide 208 planning agency
for Eagle, Grand, Jackson, Pitkin, Routt and Summit Counties in 1975.
A final plan was submitted to E.P.A. in July 1979, the plan has not yet been approved by E.P.A.
NWCOG took a very different approach to the 20 8 planning process than either DRCOG or LWCOG. The counties belonging to NWCOG face great population growth in the coming years; growth will be the result of both energy and recreation related activities. NWCOG had prepared a land use plan previous to the water quality planning effort, therefore a framework for water quality planning to fit within was available. NWCOG hired Comarc Designs, the famous environmental computer mapping corporation, to develop a water use land use related water quality map. This was an innovative and very appropriate concept, since much of the land use pattern of the six county region was yet to develop. The map would delineate proper land uses to produce good water quality.
When the mapping project was finished a set of ten policies relating land use and water quality issues were adopted by NWCOG, the member counties, and the municipalities of the region. The next step was to promulgate the newly adopted policies to regulatory agencies at local and State level. In most cases existing regulations covered many of the concerns, however some new regulations were required. The counties and municipalities were very receptive to the program, and
the needed regulations were adopted by the various levels of government.
NWCOG has produced a 20 8 plan which is an integral part of the general purpose governments regulatory procedure. From this aspect it would seem to be a fairly successful planning effort. Perhaps the largest problem with the planning effort is the fact that the computer mapping effort has in itself created a new land-use plan. The land-use water quality relationship map produced by Comarc is very accurate and quite detailed; as a result it is gaining more acceptance than the existent land use plan adopted by NWCOG at an earlier date. As well, the policies adopted by the local government create the need to use the Comarc system in relating decisions. Thus, it would seem that the 2 08 water quality plan has superseded the regional land use plan. This would seem to precipitate problems; a region wide land use plan should reflect more than just water quality concerns. A full range of concerns should guide a growth and development plan, not a single concern.
The Northwest COG 208 plan is an example of a 208 plan which is serving as a regional growth and development plan. The largest single problem with 20 8 serving as a regional plan is the narrow concern of the land use water quality map. Concern for economic development, and other social factors are not reckoned with; the result is a very lopsided concern for water quality and little or no concern for other important
growth related factors.
One other important issue the Northwest COG 208 plan brought forward is that of transmountain water diversion. One of the policies the NWCOG and its member governments adopted, calls for those who divert West Slope water, to pay for the water quality repercussions caused by creation of less flow in Western slope rivers. Specifically, the policy calls for compensation to downstream water users whom encounter salinity related problems, and also payment for treatment of municipal sewage, where reduced river flow creates the need for advanced wastewater treatment. This policy endeared the plan with local governments who felt their water was not only being stolen, but that they also were paying for treatment processes necessitated by "water hungry Denverites" Needless to say the policy did not endear East Slope interests, particularly the Denver Water Board. This policy has prevented E. P.A. from approving the 208 plan. If it were approved it could significantly effect Eastern Slope development. The cost of water would increase, and water availability might well be reduced. E.P.A. has not yet approved the NWCOG 208 plan. E.P.A. feels that the issue is too political and should be decided locally. Litigation has begun, the results of which could have a significant impact on the basis of Colorado Water Law. The court battles could last for years. Until they
are over, NWCOG will not have an approved 208 plan.
Colorado West Area Council of Governments 20 8 Plan
CWACOG 2 08 plan is an example of a 2 08 failure. CWACOG was designated as the areawide planning agency for Garfield, Mesa,
Rio Blanco and Moffat Counties in 1975. The reason for the designation was the concern for potential energy development, and the effect of that development on area waters. From the start a communications failure has plagued the planning process. 2 08 is perceived by the locals as a hurdle on the road to long awaited energy development.
The 208 plan produced by the region is only a description of the existing water quality. Management agencies are not designated, and therefore, cooperative water quality planning will probabably not occur. Although this directly threatens the ability of the governments involved to receive 201 funding from the Clean Water Act, the locals prefer lack of funding to "Federal Intervention" A billboard outside of Rifle Colorado denounced 20 8 planning as a "Communist Plot" As mentioned earlier a communications problem is evident.
The fear of the residents of the CWACOG area is of planning in general. The residents, and the governments which represent them, fear that planning is a tool which will prevent energy development, and the resulting opportunity of local land owners to sell land for housing, commercial, and other industrial development. Four 208 project direc-
tors have left the 208 planning effort since it began in 197 5; the plan
is unacceptable to both the State, and E.P. A. in its current form. Until the locals realize, which they may choose never to do, that planning does not necessarily rob them of their birthright, 20 8 will not progress in the CWACOG region.
As mentioned earlier, an obvious communications problem exists in CWACOG. The first 208 project director in the region accepted the job with the intention to protect the region from the State and Federal governments. While this attitude may not be exemplary, it was not unusual. Many 208 directors in Colorado have had a similar reason for accepting the position. The concept in designating local planning rather than State directed 208 planning, is to allow the local interests to have input into the process, and to produce a plan they can live with. Unfortunately the first 20 8 director in CWACOG did not really grasp this concept. Instead of encouraging locals to get involved and produce an effective, yet not anti-industry plan, he convinced the locals that 208 would necessarily prevent energy development, and hinder existing agriculture. The results have been disasterous; the State may be forced to take over the program. Local participation of a beneficial nature is doubtful as a result the process probably will not produce an effective plan. This is unfortunate because energy development has begun in the CWACOG area. Without proper water quality concern, and
fiscal analysis of utility extensions, the region could suffer both environmental and economic damage.
A similar resistance to planning was evident in one of Colorado's non-designated regions. However, a different result has occurred.
State 208 Coordinating Unit personnel emphasized from the start that local concerns could be accomodated. As well it was made known that the State would assume full planning responsibility if the region did not provide assistance. The result has been creation of a plan, and creation of awareness of water quality concerns and the positive aspects of proper water quality management. The local governments helped create the 20 8 plan, and feel it can be used as an effective tool in evaluating water quality needs, and growth decisions.
Non-Designated Area 208 Plans
The Non-Designated areas of Colorado are areas which are basically rural in character, and not expecting tremendous growth in the coming years. The planning effort in these areas was conducted by the State 208 Coordinating Unit with cooperative effort from the local council of governments.
The format for all of the non-designated plans is similar. They are very straightforward and easy to understand. The following sections are included in each plan:
1) A statement of the goal of the Clean Water Act.
2) An assessment of the regions existing water quality.
3) An inventory of discharges to area waters, and structural needs.
4) A strategy and timetable to improve discharger's effluent quality.
5) An assessment of non-point pollution sources, and abatement programs.
6) An institutional section, designating management agencies, and responsibilities.
The thrust of the non-designated plans is clear; to identify water quality problems, their sources, and identify the means and responsibilities for water quality improvement. The plans have provided the rural areas of the State with a management tool which provides guidance in decision making as it relates to water quality. The plans also allow the rural areas to realize the sources of funding available for both mu-
nicipal and agricultural pollution abatement.
Section IV Conclusions and Recommendations
It was the intent of Section 208 of the Clean Water Act to provide areawide waste treatment management plans. The goal of these "20 8" plans was to create a regional management system; a system which would not only serve in a reactive framework to solve existing problems, but also serve as a pro-active mechanism to avoid future water quality problems .
It is the focus of this Studio III project to study the effectiveness of 208 planning, from both a water quality and a growth management perspective. It has become clear that 208 is, and will be fairly effective water quality management tool; it is also clear that 208 in itself will not be an effective growth management tool. Indeed perhaps 2 08 was not intended to be a growth management or land use planning tool.
It was the purpose of Section 20 8 to deal significantly with water quality and a management system to control water quality at a local level. These goals, as shown, have generally been met in Colorado. To this end the management system concept has been fully utilized. The management system concept is quite sound, and should create an understanding of water quality issues at the local level. Jurisdiction and responsibility for water quality is assigned to local
general purpose governments. Any decision these governments, ( the management agencies), make will necessarily need to consider water quality. This integration of water quality concern at the local level will make 20 8 an effective water quality tool.
In addition to providing a management structure which assigns jurisdiction and responsibilities for water quality management, 2 08 has also provided a water quality and wasteload allocation analysis for all bodies of water in the State, and Nation. With this analytical information in hand and the management structure in place, the quality of the nations waters should be improved and protected. Once the chemical and biological limits of the waters are known, the amounts of pollutants which the waters are able to assimilate can be predicted.
The ability to analyze watersheds and allocate wasteloads to discharger's can also be predicted. The responsibility for implementing these wasteloads and protecting the waters is placed on the shoulders of local governments. This system of analysis and responsibility is reasonable and implementable; it is currently in place in Colorado and working.
The ability of 208 to serve as a growth management tool is much harder to analyze. Since the Clean Water Act's passage in 1972, Section 208 has often been heralded as a land use control mechanism.
There are several references in the Federal Act to land-use controls.
However, these references are specific to non-point pollution controls.
The goal of these references, at least to the author's reading, is to provide non-point water polluters such as: agriculture, forestry, construction, etc. with an understanding of their contribution to water pollution, and also provide monies for techniques aimed at mitigation of the effects. While these goals are laudable and appropriate, they are not land use considerations in the urban-regional planning sense. They are soil con-sevation concerns.
Perhaps the fact that 20 8 planning is regional in its scope also lends to the section's reputation as a land use control measure. This assertion has some basis in fact. In Colorado the designation of existing planning and management regions as 20 8 planning agencies, definitely links water quality planning to a larger regional planning concept which includes land use and growth management concerns. The concept in designating the COG'S was to integrate water quality into the regional planning process. It was not intended to stand by itself as a growth management or land use plan, but was to serve as a component, an implementation device, within a larger planning effort. To found a regional plan on only water quality concerns, would create a distortion of overall regional needs. Employment, economic, social, and other environmental factors, must also be factored into a regional plan. Unfortunately, regional planning has not gained a tremendous amount of acceptance in Colorado; as a result regional water quality planning
has in some areas been the only region wide planning effort. In other regions, such as NWCOG, the 208 effort due to its scope and Federal Funding has produced water quality plans which overwhelm the overall regional planning effort. The DRCOG 20 8 is a good example of how a 208 water quality plan is to fit into the framework of a regional plan. However, as mentioned earlier the political nature of a Council of Governments prevents implementation of policies and achievement of regional goals. Thus, even in recognizing the desire of the Federal Act to make 208 part of an integral regional planning effort, one must doubt the ability of the section to serve as a growth management or land use tool. The political jurisdictional and regulatory functions necessary to achieve meaningful regional planning simply do not exist.
The management system set forth in Colorado's 208 plans attempts to deal with the growth, development and land use issues at a local level. Management agencies are usually local general purpose governments. The concept in designating this level as "management agency" is an attempt to coordinate provision of a utility, sewers and sewage treatment, with local planning which also falls under the jurisdiction to the local general purpose government. Any really successful land use and growth management planning that takes place due to 2 08, will probably occur at the management agency level. While
this structure is similar to what existed previous to 208, there is one
vital difference. Previous to 208, sanitation districts were eligible to receive Federal Funding for wastewater improvements. This is no longer the case. Federal wastewater monies under Section 201 of the Act are available only to management agencies. Thus, a local government can control, or more likely, have an agreement with a sanitation district over service areas. This will do much to further the cause of local planning.
In assessing 2 08 in Colorado, several concepts which might improve the functioning of 208 have become apparent. All of these improvements deal with the growth management and land-use concerns of 20 8.
The water quality concepts of 208 function well; the need for changes in the water quality functions appear unnecessary. Several recommendations are appropriate for proper functioning of 208 as a growth management tool, or a part of a growth management system.
First, an obvious improvement which would make 2 08 function better within a regional planning capacity, would be creation of a regulatory regional government. Ideally, 20 8 should function within the framework of a larger effective regional planning effort. Unfortunately, regional government with regulatory powers does not appear to be forthcoming. In many ways, regionalization of governmental functions would allow a reasonable approach to metropolitan problems, including such issues as sewage treatment and water quality. However, until
a regional governmental concept is conceived, extension of utilities and many other regional concerns will be addressed at a less adequate level.
Another concern centers around the functioning of management agencies. The local governments need to become aware of the importance of long term planning. Currently little attention is paid to this vital concern. I believe the best approach is that assumed by the LWCOG; make the management agencies aware of the costs of growth.
As Section 201 monies become available for wastewater improvements the management agencies need to be aware of the long term consequences of extending utilities. While Federal dollars may pay for a portion of the original cost of sewers, the overall costs of sprawl development extends to all facets of a local economy. The costs of other utilities, environmental concerns, and energy need to be stressed. Currently the Federal dollar for sewers is all too often seen as the key to cheap utility extension and development.
Finally, other agencies and other funding sources need to be tied to the management agency concept. Currently only 201 monies under the Clean Water Act are tied to the concept of funding only management agencies as designated under Section 20 8. Other Federal and State agencies need to follow this lead. If all wastewater funding were channeled through one governmental agency the potential for creating a unified approach to development would be greatly enhanced.
In the introduction to this project, the Federal Highway Act was cited as an example of a Federal program which was primarily designed to perform one function (emergency transportation) and ended up providing the back bone of the transportation system in this country. Needless to say, placement of the highways determined the pattern of development we are currently living with. A similar parallel can be drawn in regard to the Clean Water Act. Nearly 43 billion dollars will be spent by 1985 for wastewater improvements, both sewers and treatment facilities. The placement of these facilities will do much to determine the development patterns of the coming years. The findings of this paper indicate that the concern of section 208 will be towards water quality, not growth management. In Colorado, the monies allocated for construction of wastewater collection and treatment facilities could have a profound effect on development patterns. The general goal of the Clean Water Act, ( providing secondary treatment), has been achieved everywhere in the State. Most projects now being funded with Clean Water Act monies are necessitated due to growth, and resultant overloading of sewerage facilities. In essence, communities experiencing high growth rates are being subsidized, the Federal government is paying for the costs of an expensive utility wastewater collection and
In many areas of Colorado, this subsidizing of growth is creating and reinforcing sprawl development and discouraging sound land-use and growth management concepts. If a sound means of assuring good growth and development practices is not found, the Clean Water Act could well have as negative effect as the Federal Interstate Highway Act.