government

Storage

ENVIRONMENTAL M A N A G EM EN TS^

PLAN—SAN FRANCISCO W

Nr

UM E.N TS

MAR 2 0 1979

F

t

^

R^ A T E

y ® ' f f l r

H E A R I N G s

BEFO RE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOV ERN MEN T OPE RAT ION S 

HORSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NIN ET Y-FIF TH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION

JU N E 23 AND 24, 1978

P r in te d f o r th e u se o f th e C o m m it te e o n G o v e rn m e n t O p e ra ti o n s

*

35-395

U.S . GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TIN G O FFIC E 

W AS HI NG TO N : 197 8
i

4*’

/

z z

X

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPER ATIONS

JACK BROOKS, Texas, Chairma n

L. H. FO U N TA IN , Nor th Ca ro lin a 

JO HN E. MOS S, Califo rn ia 

D A N T E B. F A S C E L L , Fl or id a 

W IL L IA M S. M OORH EA D, Pe nnsy lv an ia 

B E N JA M IN S. R O SE N TH A L, Ne w Yo rk 

FE R N A N D J. ST GE RM AI N, Rhode Is la nd 

DO N FU QUA, F lo ri da 

JO HN CO N YER S, J r., M ich igan 

LE O J. R YAN , C ali fo rn ia 

C A R D IS S CO LLIN S, Il lin oi s 

JO HN L. BU R TO N , Cal if or nia 

R IC H A R D SO N P R E Y E R , North Ca ro lin a 

M IC H A E L H AR R IN G TON , M as sa ch us etts 

R O B E R T F. DR IN AN , M as sa ch us etts 

B A R B A R A JO RD AN , Te xa s 

G LENN EN G LIS H , Ok lah om a 

E L L IO T T II. L E V IT A S , Ge or gi a 

D A V ID W. EV A N S, In di an a 

AN TH O N Y M O F F E T T , Co nn ec ticu t 

AN DR EW M AGU IR E, New Jersey.

L B S A SI’ IN , W isc on sin

H EN RY A. W AXM AN , Cal if or nia

JA C K H IG H TO W ER , Tex as

JO HN W. JE N R E T T E , Jr., So uth Ca ro lin a

FLO Y D J. F IT H IA N , In di an a

M IC H A E L T. BLO U IN , Io wa

P E T E R H. K O STM A Y E R , Pen nsy lv an ia 

T E D W E IS S, Ne w Yor k

i ,

F R A N K HORT ON,iN ew Yo rk 

JO H N N. ER LE N B O R N , Illin oi s 

JO H N W. W YD LER , Ne w Yor k 

C L A R E N C E J. BRO W N, Ohi o 

P A U L N. M cC L O SK E Y , J r., C ali fo rn ia ' .it 

G A R R Y BRO W N, Michiga n 

C H A R L E S TI IO N E, Neb ra sk a 

R O B E R T W. KA SJ tK N. J r\, W isco ns in 

TH O M A S N. K IN D N E SS, Oh io A . - • 

TO M CO RC ORA N, Il linoi s 

D A N Q U A YLE , In di an a 

R O B E R T S. W A L K E R , Pen nsy lv an ia 

A R L A N ST A N G ELA N D , M inne so ta 

J O H N E . (J A C K ) CU NNIN GH AM ,

W as hi ng to n

Wil lia m M. J on es, Ge ne ral Co un sel

Joh n E. Moo re, Sta ff A dm in istr at or

Wil lia m H. Co pen h a ver, Ass oc ia te Co un sel

L yn n e H ig g in bo th am, Cl er k

Ric har d L. T h o m pso n, M in or ity St af f Di re ct or

J. P. Carlso n, M in or ity Co un sel

E nv iron me nt, E nergy, and Natu ral Resources S ub co mm itt ee

LE O J. RYA N , Califo rn ia , Ch air ma n

L. H. FO U N TA IN , Nor th Ca ro lin a

JO HN L. BUR TO N, Cal if or nia

W IL LIA M S. M OORH EAD , Pen nsy lv an ia 

B A R B A R A JO RDAN , Te xa s 

JA C K H IG H TO W ER , Te xa s 

F L O Y D J. F IT H IA N , In dian a 

R O B E R T F . D R IN AN , M as sa ch us et ts

E X

TH O M AS N. K IN D N E SS, Ohi o 

A R L A N STA N G ELA N D , M inne so ta 

JO HN E. (J A C K ) CU NNIN GH AM , 

W as hi ng to n

O FFIC IO

J A C K B R O O K S, Tex as F R A N K HOR TO N, Ne w Yo rk

Nor ma n G. Co r n is h , Sta ff Direc to r

Dav id A. S c h u e n k e, Co un sel

Dan Co o k, Ch ie f In ve st ig at or

Ger al din e A. F it zg e r a id , Chie f Clerk

(II )
C 0 N T E N T S

Hearings held on— P a g e

Jun e 23_____________________________________________________ 1

Jun e 24 _____________________________________________________ 121

Sta tem ent of—

Condon, Joh n F., mayor, San Mate o, Calif_______________________ 22

Cooper, Fred F., supervisor, Alameda County Board of Supervisors,

Alameda Cou nty, Calif______________________________________ 52

Diridon, Rod, chairperson, Santa C lara Cou nty Board of Supervisors,

and presiden t, Association of Bay Area Governments_____________ 27

Edger, Elva, presiden t, League of Women Voters of th e Bay Area---- 118

Evan s, Marjorie, member, Air Resources Bo ard _________________ - 131

Gabe, Jeffrey D., staff scientist, Citizens for a B ett er Envir onme nt___ 76

Hasseltine, Eric, supervisor, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa, Calif___________________________________ 37

Hern, William, executive director, Peninsula Ma nufacturing Associatio n_______________________________________________________ 169

Holcomb, H. C., Plumbers & Steam fitte rs Local U nion No. 467______ 155

Kinn ey, Charles, general counsel for Associated Building Indu str y of

Northern Californ ia_________________________________________ 63

Macris, Dean, associate executive director, Association of Bay Area

Governm ents; accompanied by George Hagevik, director of policy 

coordin ation_______________________________________________ 3

Marr, R. P., Operating Engineers Local No. 3___________________ 157

Peevey, Michael, presiden t, California Council for Env iron mental

and Economic Balanc e______________________________________ 72

Pisano, Mark, execu tive director, Sou thern California Association of

Gov ernments______________________________________________ 122

Pope, Carl, Sierra Clu b_______________________________________ 68

Rogers, Peter A., chief, division of p lann ing and research, California

Sta te Water Resource Control Bo ard _________________________ 127

Shepherd, Paul, Nation al Association of Ind ust rial Office P ark s_____ 171

Siracusa, Angelo J., executive director, Bay Area Council, Inc., San

Francisco, Calif_______________________ ____________________ 56

Smith, Jam es N., Special Assistant, Water and Hazardous Materials,

Environ men tal Pro tection Agency; accom panied by Paul DeFalco,

Jr., regional adm inistra tor, region IX , EP A____________________ 137

Weinreb, Ilene, mayor, Hayward, Calif__________________________ 44

Williams, Doyle, business manager, Steamfitters Local No. 342_____ 159

Letters, statem ents, etc., sub mitted for the record by—

DeFalco, Pau l Jr. , regional adm inistra tor, region IX, Environ men tal

Protection Agency: Additional material relative to the he arings__ 144-148

Gabe, Jeffrey D., staff scien tist, Citizens for a Better Enviro nment:

Prepared statem en t________________________________________81-117

Kinney, Charles, general counsel for Associated Building Indu str y of

Northern California: Prepared statem en t______________________ 67-68

Ryan, Hon. Leo J., a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, and chairman, Environmen t, Energy, and Na tur al Resources Subcommittee: Correspondence relative to the hearings.. 164-166

Smith, James N., Special Assistant, Water and Hazardous Materials,

Enviro nmenta l Protection Agency: July 13, 1978, lette r to Cha irman Ryan re 208 agencies terminated and considered for terminatio n______________________________________________________ 149

AP PE ND IX ES

Appendix 1.—St atements sub mitted for the reco rd____________________ 177

Appendix 2.—Additional material submitted for the record ____________ 265

(in)
V
ENVIR ONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN—

SAN FRANCISCO

FRID A Y , JU N E 23, 1978

H ou se of R ep re se nt at iv es ,

E n vir onm en t, E ne rg y, 

an d N at ur al R eso urces S ubc om mit te e

o r t ii e Com m it te e on G over nm en t O pe ra ti ons,

San Francisco, Calif.

The subcommittee met, pursuan t to notice, at 10 a.m., in courtroom 

No. 12, Federal Office Building and Court House, San Francisco, 

Calif., Hon. Leo J. Ryan (chairm an of the subcommittee) presiding.

Pres ent: Representatives Leo J. Ryan, and Joh n E. (Jack) 

Cunningham.

Also present: Representative John L. Burton.

Staff present: Norman G. Cornish, staff director; David A. 

Schuenke, counsel; Dan Cook, chief investigator; and Thomas G. 

Morr, minority professional staff, Committee on Government 

Operations.

Mr. Ryan. The House Environment, Energy, and Natu ral Resources Subcommittee will come to order.

I would like to welcome those who have come to the hearings, 

which will commence this morning. Both today and tomorrow we 

will be examining the environmental management plan, which has 

been adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments.

Before we begin our hearings, I would like to make a few introductory7

 comments. First of all, let me introduce my fellow subcommittee member who is here. Representative Jac k Cunningham, from 

the State of Washington, is on my right. We are also accompanied 

by various members of the subcommittee staff.

Since many of you have never attended a congressional hearing, 

a word or two on how the hearing is conducted might be helpful. Our 

hearings, whether they lie in the held or in Washington, are governed 

by the formal rules of the House and its Committee on Government 

Operations, of which this subcommittee is a part.

The list of witnesses is prepared in advance, so t ha t we can prop ­

erly plan a logical presentation of testimony and questions. Unfortunately, we may not be able to hear everyone who would like to 

testify at this time. Therefore, if there is anyone present in th at category, we will be pleased to keep the record open for 2 weeks, a fter 

the close of this hearing tomorrow, for the submission of written 

testimony by anyone who is here and it will be included in the record.

Incidentally, we have found that written testimony whether it’s 

delivered here, or not, is oftentimes very valuable and would be carefully considered, if it’s submitted within tha t 2-week period.

(D
The questioning of witnesses today who will appear will be limited 

to members of the subcommittee.

Now, we are a factfinding body on behalf of the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and on behalf of the Congress, itself. And, that’s 

why we are here today.

We want to learn about the environmental management plan, which 

has been adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments.

[The environmental management plan recommendations are retained in the subcommittee files.]

Mr. Ryan. We want to examine the process by which that plan was 

adopted. And, T might point out, tha t in spite of the many requests 

from people within various groups here in the bav area to hold this 

hearing early, before that plan was adopted, we did not do so by choice. 

We wanted the Association of Bay Area Governments to be able to 

present the plan to have it voted upon before we took any kind of 

action here. We want to review the roles played by locally elected 

officials, by community business and labor leaders, by citizens and 

public interest groups, and by the public in the development and adopt ion of the plan.

We want to know if the Federal environmental requirements permitted the local communities sufficient latitude to fashion a plan which 

the communities wanted, and which they perceive to be in their own 

best interests.

M e want to know the involvement of Federal agencies in the development of the plan. I, personally, have some rath er grave reserv ations 

about the 208 plan, because T am concerned about what T believe to be 

a loss of local control, local determination as to how a pa rticular community spends money: or, is required to spend money, local money, 

to follow’ Federal mandates. We want to know if the appropriate Federal agencies assisted in the planning and were supportive of the local 

communities’ efforts.

We also want your perception of what this plan will mean to the 

community. We want your assessment of how the implementation of 

this plan will affect environmental quality, and the social and economic fabric of the community.

The answers to these questions are important, not only for the San 

Francisco Bay area, but for many communities all across the Nation 

which must contend with the environmental requirements of the Federal law, now referred to as the section 208, or the environmental 

management plan.

T am also concerned, personally, with what T perceive to be a lack 

of interest on the part of the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, in working on this kind of plan.

Tt seems to me an anomaly that we can have the Environmental Pro ­

tection Agency, in particular, pushing so hard for clean ai r and water, 

when the policies of the Federal Government for the last 30 years, 

which allowed for the construction of all kinds of Federal highways: 

for the construction all kinds of housing, with Federal subsidies and 

Federal loans: and which allowed, therefore, all kinds of people, all 

across the country, to move out of the cities and leave them destitute: 

move into suburban areas, and create their own kind of pollution 30 

years later. And. now. they are there, to find a new generation of Federal officials saying: “Now, that you are out there, we got you again.
And, now we are going to fine you. if you don’t do what we tell you 

from Washington.” To me, tha t’s a contradiction which simply cannot 

he ignored by those who have l>een given some kind of authority here.

We hope that throu gh these hearings other communities may learn 

from our experience here in the bay area. This is, I am told, the first 

•effort, anywhere in the country to reach this pa rticular point in following the mandates of section 208.

With that in mind, we will start off this morning with a presentation by the ABAG staff, led by Mr. Dean Maoris, the associate director. 

Because the environmental management plan is large and complicated, 

we want to devote as much time as necessary to an understanding of 

the major components of the plan itself, the planning process, the 

basic Federal mandates to which the plan responds.

And. I would like to ask Mr. Maoris, when he comes up. to please 

be certain to leave enough time for Mr. Cunningham, and the staff and 

I to ask questions about the plan.

Mr. Cunningham, do you have any remarks?

Mr. Cunnigiiam. Mr. Chairman, I really don’t, other than to publicly applaud you again for your continuing leadership in directing 

the investigations of this subcommittee and the Government Operations Committee, in general. And, I am simply here with you to listen 

and learn.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Air. Cunningham, I appreciate that.

Mr. Macris.

I want to add, while Mr. Macris is coming forward, I would like to 

announce here that it is a known procedure in conducting investigations by the Committee on Government Operations and its subcommittees, to swear in all witnesses who appear'before the committee.

So. if you will raise your right hand.

["Witness sworn.]

Air. Ryan. Be seated, and give your name for the record.

STATEMENT OF DEAN MACRIS, ASSOCIATE EXEC TIVE DIRECTOR,

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS; ACCOMPANIED BY

GEORGE HAGEVIK, DIRECTOR OF POLICY COORDINATION

Air. AIacris. Air. Chairman, Congressman Cunningham, my name is 

Dean AIacris. I am the associate executive director of the Association 

of Bay Area Governments. And, I am appearin g here in behalf of Air. 

Tranter, who is out of the city, and who apologizes for not being here 

today.

Air. Chairman, we are also very pleased that you agreed to hold 

these hearings here in the bay area, and to followup on San Alateo 

County Council of Alayors and our own association’s request that 

these hearings be held.

I am just at this point going to tell you briefly the status of the plan. 

On .Tune 10, the association's general assembly nearly unanimously 

approved the plan that’s going to be described to you today.

We think that this was a major achievement around the country in 

environmental management.

Now, obviously, the plan that was approved does represent a great 

number of compromises. The staff's job initially was to demonstrate 

to the more than 500 elected officials in the bay area, city councilmen,
4

and supervisors, what it would take to meet Federal environmental

standards.

Our initia l dra ft plan arrayed a number of choices in air quality, 

and water quality, and solid wastes, precisely, the kinds of control 

measures tha t were necessary to meet the Federal and State standards.

And through that process the elected officials made a determination 

of how to adjust the plan to meet local needs. Now-----

Mr. Ryan. Mr. Maoris, may I break in ?

Mr. Maoris. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ryan. J ust to ask you, on a procedural matter, how much time *

do you think it will take to make your presentation? Because, I'd like 

to see if we can’t work this out, so we can have sufficient time to ask 

questions about that.

Mr. Maoris. We’d hope to limit our description of the plan to about •

1 hour. We can, maybe, even shorten that, if you’d like.

Mr. R yan. I would like you to shorten it to, say, half an hour to 45 

minutes, if you could. Because, we have quite a few’ questions we’d like 

to get in.

Mr. Maoris. Sure. Fine. Well, I’ll then ask the staff tha t’s going to 

make the presentation to try to confine the presentation to that time.

Mr. Ryan. All right. We want just the broad outlines.

Mr. Maoris. Sure. Absolutely, sir.

Now, again, let me say, that we feel tha t the plan tha t is now 

adopted does meet the Federal and State requirements for environmental protection.

The next step in the process is tha t the State water resources control 

board and the State air resources board will act on the plan and forward it to EPA . The only precise date we have on tha t is that on 

July 24, the State water board is expected to hold a hearing on it. We 

have not heard from the State air board on what day they will be acting 

on the plan.

But, after the State forwards the plan to the EP A, the EP A has. 

by law, 120 days to finally act on the plan. And, then we assume that at 

that point the plan would have the force of Federal law.

Now, if I could turn at this point to Dr. George Hagevik, of our 

staff, to give you a very quick overview on how we organized procedures that led to where we ended up on June 10, a few’ wreeks ago. And, *

then we’ll ask Dr. Gene Leong, the head of our air quality effort, and 

then Joh n Davis, who headed our water quality program, to make 

the ir remarks on what the plan contains.

Mr. Ryan. All right. Before he begins, may I, just for clarification— •

when you say you haven’t heard from the State air resources board, 

w hat, do you mean by tha t ?

Air. AIacris. Well, in the sense, sir, that w’e have heard from the 

water board t hat they intend to—they’ve already held one workshop, 

as a matter of fact, on the ir portion of the plan—act on the water 

quality portion of the plan on J uly 24. We have not heard the same 

inform ation from the State air board, as to what day they plan to act 

on the plan. Which, then, in turn , the plan is forwarded to the EP A 

for their action.

Mr. Ryan. Is there any significance to that?

Mr. Maoris. Sir, I couldn’t attribute anything to it, except that 

they still have some questions they may wTant to ask us; or. that they 

have th eir own workload that doesn't allow us to be scheduled yet.
Mr. Ryan. Have you and those boards had any comment, or any 

input, on the dr aft so far ?

Mr. Maoris. Well, we have all throughout the process, sir. They 

have inform ally met as a program review board, in which each of 

those State agencies have had representatives. And, they have commented through out the process.

Mr. Hagevik. My name is George Hagevik, and I am the director 

of policy coordination at ABAG.

I ’d like to run through the first 3 pages of the light blue covered 

document I believe you have before you. T hat covers quickly the history of this program tha t started about 3 years ago.

The environmental issues that were of considerable concern to the 

elected officials on the ABAG executive board, about 3 years ago, 

were the five listed on page 1.

Even though we had spent a g reat deal of money on sewage trea tment facility construction in the bay area, a number of nagging water 

quality problems remained. And, these were identified as being tied to 

surface runoff during the wet season of the year.

This was very much in keeping with the requirements of section 

208 of the Federal Wa ter Pollution Control Act, which required 

surface runoff planning.

We also saw, even before the drought, tha t regional water supply 

demand might outstrip the supply of water coming into the bay area. 

And, the executive board thought this was worthy of study.

Clearly, the air quality problems in California are recognized as 

the most serious environmental problems facing us. And, there was a 

clear need to address, particularly, the photochemical oxidant problem.

There’s also no question that in the bay area we had been continuing 

to rely heavily on sanitary landfills for disposing of our solid waste. 

And. the elected officials realize that eventually we are going to have to 

move to a more regional approach t ha t would deal with siting of hazardous landfills, but also getting extensively into resource recovery 

that we were not able to.

Finally, we realized tha t all of these environmental problems were 

related to each other. I f you tackled one, you would affect another. For 

example, if you implemented sophisticated air pollution controls, took 

waste out of the atmosphere, you’d be depositing them into your water 

bodies, or your landfills.

We also realized tha t these various governmental programs were 

going to cost locally elected officials and the taxpayers a great deal of 

money.

The historical approach in California, as you know, has always been 

to take the single-purpose approach. We have the coastal commissions, 

the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the air pollution 

control districts, the regional water quality control boards, all going 

after a specific problem, more or less, treated in isolation from each 

other.

I know Congressman Cunningham is aware in the State of Washington. where I am also from, th at there is a State department of ecology 

that is concerned with most environmental issues. In California, there 

are at least five different agencies, more or less independent, who tre at 

various environmental issues.

So there was, again, considerable concern among the locally elected
6

officials in th e bay area to t ry to tie th ese pr og rams to gether, a nd to look 

at them a t one time .

At the sam e time there were F ed er al m andates th at we resp onded to. 

Of course, the majo r one was section 208 of the Fe de ral W at er P ol lu ­

tio n Co ntrol Act. Th e ABAC executive bo ard sought the desig nation 

as th e 208 p lann in g agency for th e b ay area , alon g w ith abo ut 175 other 

councils o f g overnme nts across th e c ou ntr y, abou t 3 years ago. An d, we 

rece ived th at des ign ation fro m th e St ate wa ter qu ality contr ol board 

an d E PA .

At the sa me time the Clean A ir Act re quire d ai r q ua lity m ain ten ance 

plan ning . I t seemed, at tha t tim e, th at you s hould not have one policy 

bod y of elected officials lo oking a t wa ter qu ality plan ning , wi th all of 

the req uir em ents for p ublic partic ip atio n, an aly sis, an d wliat hav e you, 

an othe r po licy body o f elected officials—m aybe, t he same pe ople—lo oking a t just water quality .

Th e th ir d r equir em ent w as th at the Ca lif or nia Le gislatur e did pass 

leg islati on making ABAC the reg ion al solid waste pl an ni ng agency 

fo r the ba y area. An d, again , the executive bo ard thou gh t th at these 

three pr og rams sho uld be ca rri ed ou t in a related fas hio n. An d, this 

was t he decision to set up the envir onme nta l manag ement task force, 

ap prox im ately 3 years a go, to ca rry ou t thes e pl an ni ng efforts.

In sum, it w as a feeling , at the loca l level, th at there were so many 

Fe de ral an d St ate pl an ni ng pr og rams carried ou t in iso latio n; th at 

the y sh ould be related.

An d, also, a recognition , I believe, fro m E PA , th at th ei r variou s 

plan ni ng ma ndate s sho uld be related in some fas hio n. And , I th in k 

it's fa ir t o say, th at in the 3 y ears since this decision was made, th at 

E P A has moved more str on gly in the are a of pu lli ng th ei r various 

pr og rams tog eth er.

Mr. R yan . I h esitate to brea k in.

Mr. H agevik. Tha t's all rig ht.

Mr. Ryan. I f it in te rrup ts yo ur co ntinuity, I w ish you wou ld say so.

One of the problem s which it seems to me is inhe rent in this kind 

of effort —as lau dable as it is to clean up our air, an d clea n up our 

wa ter —is the frac tio ning of effort th at exists. Not ju st on a vertic al 

bas is b etween the city council, an d the co unty sup erv isors, an d AB AC , 

an d the reg ion al, and the State , and then the Fe de ra l; bu t, also, on 

a la te ra l basis whe re Ma cy’s doesn 't ta lk to Gimb el’s; where E PA 

doesn’t ta lk to In te rior , Fi sh an d W ildl ife; an d, Fi sh an d W ild lif e 

doe sn’t ta lk to Tra ns po rtat io n; and, Tr an sp or tatio n doe sn’t ta lk to 

HUD.

I t’s iro nic to me th at we can hav e a lim it set of 55- miles-an-hou r 

in the Dep artm en t of Tra ns po rtatio n, and sti ll be encoura gin g to 

rec ent ly pas sed le gis lation t he ac quisition o f p arks and la nd s t hat were 

so far away, if we were to follow th ro ug h in e ith er direction, we’d have 

to get rid of eit he r the 55-miles -an-ho ur an d qu it savin g gas, or quit 

bu ying p ar ks t h at are so fa r aw ay ; th at if you want to save gas, you 

can’t use the m, because they a re too fa r away.

Now, I wo nder in con nection with th is environme nta l ma nageme nt 

plan, which is the most significant effo rt made in the histor y of thi s 

country to tr y to get local school board s, local city councils, local 

cou nty supervisors to do some thing tog eth er. Almo st sayin g, wh eth er 

you like it or not.
7

I wonder the extent to which ABAG has worked with DOT and 

with HUD, in particular. Not just in asking you this question. B ut, 

for those who will be witnesses later, I want to know what the Federals, themselves, have done to coordinate th eir own efforts to achieve 

some kind of better quality.

Mr. Hagevik. Well, I ’ll just respond very quickly to tha t point.

I ’d like to say, initially, tha t councils of government probably 

exist because of the grea t variety of planning programs. I guess, the 

analogy is th at we are sort of like in the middle of an hourglass. At 

the bottom you have all local governments that we represent. And, at 

the top you have, not only the EPA programs, but all the other Federal agencies. So, we spend as much time in coordination activities at 

the regional level as we do in planning work.

There’s no question that there is a great diversity of Federal programs. The only example I can point to righ t now, of the Federal 

Government pulling its act together, is in President Carter’s urban 

strategy. Where there have been task forces in various Federal agencies 

trying to pull together the ir various programs.

We have a very difficult time relating to all the DOT and EP A 

programs because they are so diverse.

I can’t respond more than that, except to say, tha t it’s, indeed, a 

problem that we recognize. But, it’s difficult for us to respond, except 

to pass a resolution requesting Congress to pass legislation to require 

more coordination.

I'll jus t go on then to-----

Mr. Ryan. Please do.

Mr. Hagevik. I'll just go on to the remaining two sections that I have 

here, to keep my three sections short.

On the next page, discussing organizing to prepare the plan :

The environmental management task force was set up by the ABAG 

executive board to be composed of a majority of elected officials. But, 

also to include affected interest groups, and public interest groups, 

including labor unions, the business community, the Sierra Club, what 

have you, even senior citizens, and agricu ltura l interests.

They felt that we should have a broadly based policy body to make 

the decisions tha t would affect most every person in the bay area.

And, I think as you’ll see, the dra ft plan went throu gh a series of 

modifications as a result of decisions by this group.

It was a plan that the general assembly could live with. I think tha t 

in the final analysis you would have to agree tha t this task force approach was very effective in including the interest groups who were 

concerned about environmental control and the economic impacts of 

various measures.

We did involve a great variety of special purpose agencies in the 

region, because they did have powers to implement—the same agencies 

tha t I referred to, metropolitan transportation commission, and so 

forth.

Mr. Ryan. May I ask a question at that point ? Now. you say on th at 

page: “Organizing to prepare the plan. Form ation of broadly representative policy bodv.” Who was the initiating force, the agency ? Was 

the ABAG?

Mr. Hagevik. Th at’s correct. We received the funding.

Mr. Ryan. And, where did you get the authority to do so ?
8

Mr. Hagevik. The State water resources control board designated 

ABAG as the 208 agency in the State of California.

Mr. Ryan. And, they, under law, the State water quality control 

hoard was the agency to pick up the ball and run with it, according to 

the Federal act?

Mr. Hagevik. That’s right. E PA also had to concur in tha t decision.

Mr. Ryan. Acting for the Governor ?

Mr. Hagevik. That’s correct.

Mr. Ryan. So, in effect, the Governor is passing on his authority 

to—about three times down the road—to ABAG, itself, and its staff 

to get this thing organized.

Mr. Hagevik. That’s correct.

And, the ABAG executive board, therefore, took upon itself the responsibility of setting up this special task force to carry out this planning—advisory task force to itself, to carry out this plan.

Mr. Ryan. So, the reason I bring th is point out is because I want to 

emphasize it later on when we have city and county officials who are 

testifying.

I want to know, in specific, from them in their testimony whether 

they are comfortable with this particu lar procedure. And, it’s extremely important to have them give the best and most accurate response they can. Because, this kind of process is going on in Sacramento, tha t I know o f; it's going on in Los Angeles, that I know ; it’s 

going on in Miami; it’s going on in Pi ttsburgh; it’s going on in Cincinnati ; it's going on in Chicago; it's going on everywhere there’s a metropolitan area. And, we're first. And, if the law needs to be changed, or 

modified, or done away with, it’s time we find out before it’s too late.

Air. Hagevik. We did have involvement on the task force of these 

implementing agencies. Again, I don't have to go over the list of 

them. But, they did participate on the task force with an elected official from the policy body. And, the staffs of these agencies did participate in actually preparing the plan.

Also, we had a very large public involvement program tha t emphasized both the general public and the locally elected officials. I believe you and I were at the same meeting at the council of mayors in 

San Mateo, when we were discussing the plan. I think you heard about 

it very forcefully, for the first time.

We made an extensive effort to deal with locally elected officials and 

have them make the key decisions. In a region our size that was a 

difficult effort. But, I thin k we did attr act their attention. We attracted your attention, too.

Mr. R yan. Well, yes, you did, as a matter of fact. T hat was my first 

sort of realization tha t it had finally gotten that far down the road. 

But. having attracted the attention—this is like the 2 by 4 between the 

ears of the donkey. And, I think there has been reference to that used 

lately in connection with proposition 13.

Wh at I am concerned about is some of the reaction I got at th at meeting of the San Mateo County Council of Mayors, which was not pa rticularly friendly.

Xow, you can say to your satisfaction, at least, from what you’ve 

been able to see, t ha t local communities were involved and actually 

had a substantial amount to say, without any kind of significant or 

overriding pressure from the Federal Government or the State 

government?
9

Mr. H agevik. Well, I can't agree to that entirely. I would say tha t 

there has been a grea t deal of concern among our locally elected officials about the sanctions available under, primarily, the new Clean 

Air Act and, to a lesser extent, under the Fede ral W ater Pollution Control Act.

Mr. Ryan. Now, that's the first point I'd sort of like to pin to the 

wall for a comment for later on, all th roug h these 2 days of hearings.

I have heard substantial individual complaint to me from elected, 

officials about being told th at if you don't do this, it will get worse because the Feds wifi tre at you rougher than we will. I don’t know 

whether this is true, or not. But, now, we are not talking about sort of 

hearsay comment, circumstantial kind of thing. We are talkin g about 

direct comments. And, 1 want to hear from you; I w ant to hear from 

those who come before this particular subcommittee, whether or not— 

I am going to ask now. Whether, or not, you are aware of any specific 

comment made by Fe deral or State officials? I am talking now about 

at the Federal level—from the Environmental Protection Agency, 

from any Federal agency, as such—or, from any State agency, as such. 

Tha t you’d better go along with this, or else we’ll come in and it will be 

much rougher on you than this. Can you think of anybody who has 

said tha t to you ?

Mr. H agevik. I would say that in terms of comments from Federal 

agencies—in this case, i t’s primarily EP A—th at the comments, either 

in oral or written form, were a restating of Fede ral legislation, verbatim, reading sections of-----

Mr. Ryan. W ith what meaning to be read into it, as fa r as you are 

concerned ?

Mr. Hagevik. T hat there are sanctions written into the Clean Air 

Act that are available to the EPA Administrato r if he makes a finding 

tha t a plan under the Fede ral Water Pollution Control, or the Clean 

Air Act, is-----

Mr. R yan. And, what are those sanctions ? W hat can they do, if we 

don’t ?

Mr. Hagevik. There is the possibility that EP A could reduce the 

amount of sewage treatmen t funds available to the San Francisco Bay 

area. And, as I mentioned earlier, it’s many millions of dollars that are 

being spent.

Under the Clean Air Act there are some transportation funds which 

might not be available. I thin k it would be approp riate to address that 

question to an EP A representative, who I believe is going to be here 

tomorrow.

Mr. Ryan. All right. I intend to.

Mr. Hagevik. But, those points were brought up at the request—I 

might add—of the task force people. They wanted a clear understanding of what mandates they had to meet.

Now, going back to the first point you raised about whether the 

elected officials felt they w’ere effectively involved in the process, I 

think I would have to say, most emphatically, yes. The plan as it 

emerged, at the end of the process, I believe responded to every concern that they raised.

The plan tha t you heard about was a staff document. The staff took 

the view that we should present all of the measures available to our
10

elected officials. And, they would choose the ones that they found acceptable to them.

Mr. Ryan. So, the AB AG staff, then, prepared a kind of menu from 

which local officials could choose which plan they wanted ?

Mr. Hagevik. Yes.

Mr. Diridon. May I respond to th at, Congressman? I am Ron Diridon, chairman of the board of supervisors, Santa Clara County and 

president of ABAG.

Mr. Ryan. Now, you are on for a little later on down here.

Mr. Diridon. Yes. I wish to give an overview comment. And, I apolo- *

gize for being late. We had another meeting here in-----

Mr. R yan. I would rather hear from the ABAG officials for awhile, 

if I could, supervisor. And then, if you could come in late r on, we’ll 

give our full attention to you. •

Mr. Diridon. Yes. I am president of ABAG.

Mr. Ryan. You are president of ABAG. I know. B ut, this is the 

staff. And, you are the ones who prepared all this, I presume?

Mr. Diridon. They worked for the president and an executive board 

of ABAG. And, I thin k that to ask them how the elected officials in 

the bay area feel about th e issue is a proper question to ask—policymakers.

Air. Ryan. Well, I was asking their perception of how they feel.

Mr. Diridon. All right. I ’d like to respond to your question. And,

I thin k I can do so a little more directly than a staff person might 

be able to respond.

Mr. Ryan. Well, I appreciate it. But, if we can, I would rather 

wait until we get to you. Because, I am interested in hearing about 

the difference between—there have been criticisms th at the ABAG 

boa id, itself, was not always aware of what the staff was doing. Or. 

tha t the Staff, itself, was independent of, and could manipulate. The 

extent of the tru th of that, I don’t have any idea; or, th e validity, I 

guess, you could say, of the charge. But, I am anxious to hear from 

the staff and get their point of Anew on the thing.

And, then, if we can, I ’d like to have you just give whatever comments you care to along the line. I f a question I ask, you feel you are 

not competent to answer, please do so. I make no effort to place any 

kind of restrictions on what you do----- *

Mr. Hagevik. Well, as Supervisor Diridon said, I thin k he’s much 

more qualified to speak about what the elected officials thought than 

I am.

Mr. R yan. All right. Well, we’ll withdraw the question, then. *

Mr. II agevik. OK. The point I would like to add was that I think, 

as professional planners, our staff responsibility was to present all of 

the options, even the most draconian—the “Oh, my God measures”-----

Mr. Ryan. Yes.

Air. Hagevik [continuing]. That we could think up. And, not on 

the staff level just say, that’s not acceptable.

Mr. Ryan. Yes.

Mr. Hagevik. It was not our job to say, throw out rationing-----

Mr. Ryan. Right.

Mr. Hagevik [continuing]. Or land use controls. But, let the 

policy-----
11

Mr. Ryan. So, you believe, then, th at the staff prepared an adequate 

range of options?

Mr. Hagevik. I think tha t’s a fair statement.

Mr. Ryan. Mr. Macris?

Mr. Maoris. Well, I think, what we’d want to say, sir, is tha t— 

to follow up George’s point—is tha t our job was to show the complete 

range of possibilities, notwithstanding whether we thought that gas 

rationing would be unacceptable to the public.

Mr. Ryan. Yes. All right.

Mr. Maoris. And, I thin k what we did learn from tha t process is 

tha t the staff was immediately—I think “accused” would be the r ight 

word—accused of insisting on gas rationing. And, I think, if we had to 

do it over again, we might take a slightly different approach. Because, 

it could follow your remark that staff was, I think, innocently, in a position of saying, we are pushing gas ratio ning; or, we are pushing the 

banning of gas lawnmowers. This was not our intent, at all.

Mr. Ryan. Yes.

Air. Maoris. Our inte nt was simply to get out the subject for debate 

and linal decision by elected people.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you.

Are you on page 2,1 believe, here ?

Mr. Hagevick. Yes. I want to finish up on-----

Air. Ryan. All right.

Air. Hagevik [continuing]. Organizing to prepare the plan.

Finally, we did have a unique body set up by the State in EP A, 

vailed the program review board of the various State agencies tha t 

were involved in the process in EPA.

And, this was a useful way for EP A, State agencies, ABAG staff, 

and elected officials to talk about what the actual requirements of the 

planning program were. It was a very inform al base meeting tha t 

occurred every couple of months.

And, I think it allowed, paradoxically, the State agencies to talk 

to each other on an inform al basis in our offices. And, I think, it’s a 

small point, but I think tha t was a very effective mechanism for 

allowing many of the participating agencies to discuss common problems tha t they faced.

On the next page, very quickly, the elements of the plan tha t we 

address were: Water quality, water supply, air quality, and solid 

waste.

On the rig ht side, are really the issues facing local government. They 

don’t think direct!v in terms of water supply, water quality, probably 

as many of the EP A people do. They are concerned about these set 

of issues. And, we saw tha t on all the programs th at we were involved 

with at the local level it came down in terms of the issues of population growth; land use and transportation; housing: energy; particu ­

larly, fiscal impacts; equity; and the overall benefits and costs.

And, we tried to lay out these in one plan, so that the local elected 

officials—at least once—should see the range of federally mandated 

environmental programs tha t they had to respond to.

Aud, I think that’s one of the reasons why we got so much atte ntion. Because, it became a very big effort, because of. No. 1. the variety 

of Federal planning requirements, but also the recognition by locally
12

elected officials tha t the environmental issues th at they had to deal 

with had social and economic impacts, and tha t they were closely related to each other.

Now, to conclude on the next page, I want to emphasize the process.

Because, when we were at tha t meeting, Mr. Chairman, in San Mateo 

County, we were working with the dr aft plan which had a number 

of very strong measures in it. Through this review process—through 

technical advisory committees, t hat involved local staff, the business 

community, and industry, the Environmental Management Task Force 

did make a number of changes in the plan. *

They held public hearings on the plan. One in San Jose, I believe, 

had 450 people present.

The A BAG Regional Plan ning Committee and the executive board 

made changes. And, finally, the general assembly acted on the plan •

on June 10.

It is interesting to note tha t the general assembly approved the 

plan with only about five dissenting votes. There was general concurrence that the cities and counties in the region could act together to 

come up with an acceptable plan.

The only change t hat was made, of significance, at the general assembly was to require staff, on a yearly basis, to prepare a report on 

the implementation of the EP A programs in other parts of the country. An overwhelming concern was stated about the fact that EP A 

might be less stringent in the application of its regulations in some 

other part of the country. And, therefore, place our local governments 

in our region at a competitive disadvantage in terms of economic 

development.

And, we will, on a yearly basis, update this plan and brin g before 

the general assembly how EP A and other Federal programs are being implemented, let’s say, in Texas, as one example. 8o, the ABAG 

executive board and general assembly can decide whether to modify 

the plan in any way to meet the needs at that point in time.

Tha t concludes my presentation. And, I think, next we are going 

to have Gene Leong and J ohn Davis, of our staff, go quickly through 

the air and water portions, and solid waste portions of the plan.

[Thereupon, both witnesses were sworn.]

Mr. Ryan. Give both your names, please, for the record.

Mr. Davis. My name is Joh n Davis. I am principal environmental 

engineer with ABAG. And, I was responsible for preparation of the 

water quality, water supply elements of the environmental management plan. What I would like to do is-----

Mr. Ryan. Let him give his name, please.

Air. Leong. Aly name is Gene Leong. I am also a principal environmental engineer with ABAG. And, I am responsible for preparation 

of the air quality maintenance plan.

Air. R yan. OK.

Air. Davis. I ’d like to briefly go over pages 5 and 6 in the document 

tha t you have, which explains what’s in the plan for the water quality 

element and the water supply element.

The two are somewhat different. The water quality element builds 

on a number of planning programs already ongoing in the area. A 

great deal of effort is already being expended to clean up the municipal
13

and industrial waste discharges. We were building on that planning 

program. The water supply plan is somewhat different in the sense that there has been little water supply planning in the region, from a regional perspective, in the past. Prin cipally, this occurs because the respon­ sibility for water supply service is shared by many agencies who do 

their own planning in a fairly independent fashion. Looking at the water quality plan first, the principal objective was, it was to try to determine what water quality problems might re­ main in the region once the present program of municipal and in dus­ tri al wastewater treatmen t plant construction is complete. After a fairly lengthy period of analysis, we concluded tha t the more evident water pollution problems were p retty well on the way to solution. W hat we were left with was a range of more subtle envi­ ronmental problems, mostly things dealing with the unexplained 

effects of pollutant effect on fish and wildlife. Because of this, the general thrust of our program was kind of a dual thru st, in a sense. The one p art of it was that we should g ather more information on these less well-understood pollution problems. The other was that we should take fairly modest, low-cost steps 

toward control of pollutant sources. Going through the principal recommendations, the first on the list is that the municipal and industrial wastewater facilities construction 

program should be completed. We concluded th ere was no necessity for any higher levels of treat­ ment tha n those currently required by State and Federal law, however. The second, and one of the most im portant reconunendations hi the plan, is that we should begin surface runoff control programs in each 

county. These programs were prepared by the counties themselves, under the overall direction of AB AG. One of the conclusions that we reached is tha t there has to be a shift in emphasis in water quality management from the point sources, the municipal and industrial sources, of pollu­ tion to surface runoff—tha t is, the pollutants contained in storm runoff 

from our streets. So pa rt of the pla n is a recommendation t ha t each county go ahead with the program tha t it developed itself as pa rt of this overall EM P 

program. A th ird recommendation is th at we should establish a San Francisco Bay delta research advisory council. As I mentioned, there appears to be a need for better gath ering of inform ation on pollutant effects on 

the bay, and better research into what we can do about them. As originally formulated, the recommendation was that a new sepa­ rate entity should be set up to undertake monitoring and research in the bay. As a result of the approval process, it was decided tha t there is not a good enough case for such an organization a t this time. And so the recommendation was modified to form an advisory committee, which would advise the existing regional water quality control board 

on this matter. Another recommendation is t ha t we should attempt to reestablish 

recreational and commercial shellfishing in the bay. Since a great deal of money has been spent on cleaning up the pol35- 39 5—7 8-
14

luta nt sources, it seems tha t for a relatively modest expenditure, we

could derive the benefits of a shorefishing industry, or, at least, the

recreational benefits of shellfishing.

Some of the recommendations deal with the wastewater disposal 

practices in unsewered areas, establishing minimum guidelines for 

septic tank, or other on-lot systems. Also, some recommendations deal 

with pollution caused by vessels, construction of holding tank pumpout facilities at marinas, and holding public hearings to determine 

whether a discharge prohibition is necessary.

Turning to the water supply side, the basic problem in the area is 

tha t the demand for water is growing. We c urrently consume some­ »

thin g like 1,600 million gallons of water a day. And, by our estimates, 

we would expect to consume something like 2,000 million gallons a day 

by the year 2000, if a bay area population of about 6 million develops. 

The problem was how best to go about matching the supplies th at we •

have with demand. We looked at three possibilities: (1) The water conservation programs. Basically, tr yin g to make better use of the water 

we already have. (2) Wastewater reclamation. Trying to reuse sewage 

for uses that require lesser quality waters. (3) Looking at th e possibility of new sources of water.

We concluded that if moderate water savings programs—those that 

emphasize savings in the home—were implemented, something like 12 

to 15 percent of the regional demand for water could be saved.

If we went ahead with all of the wastewater reclamation projects 

tha t seemed to be reasonably cost effective—tha t is, that they could 

deliver water at a price comparable with water from new sources, for 

example—then, we would save another 5 percent of demand.

The new sources of water being planned for the area could deliver 

around 500 or 600 million gallons of water a day. And, it became ap ­

parent to us, that if conservation and reclamation were pursued fairly 

vigorously, then it, probably, would not be necessary to construct 

every one of the five or six major water projects tha t are presently 

planned before the year 2000.

Just to summarize the recommendations of the water supply element, the first recommendation is that we should create a regional 

water management coordinating committee made up of the major 

water agencies. It would provide a forum for these agencies to get 

together and attempt to take some steps toward regional water supply 

planning.

I thin k some benefits are evident. And, as I mentioned earlier, the 

present division of responsibilities means th at planning is conducted 

right now in a rather fragmented way.

Second, it is recommended that the moderate water savings program 

I mentioned, should be implemented by water agencies.

And, finally, it is recommended that all the cost-effective wastewater reclamation projects should be built.

That concludes my presentation on water quality and water supply.

If you have no questions, I ’d like to ask Dr. Leong to describe the——

Mr. Ryan. I ’d ra ther wait until after we are done with the air qual­ ity section.

Mr. Leong?

Mr. Leong. California is known, either famously and infamously, for its a ir pollution.
15

Basically, the regulatory mechanisms that are established under State and Federal law in California are th at we have a California ail resources board, a State agency which is overall responsible for the air pollution efforts. And, then, we have numerous regional agencies. Here in the bay area we have the bay area air pollution control dis­ trict, which operates predominantly in the control of stationary 

sources. The bay area is a nonattainm ent area for numerous of the health- based air quality standards tha t the Fede ral Government has estab-

• lislied. The most serious of these is photochemical oxidants. Although, in the last 10 years, this photochemical oxidant problem lias been im­ proving, the region still continuously, periodically, violates those health-based standards, anywhere from two to three times, anywhere

• from 30,40,50 days a year. With the programs t ha t are currently in. place, we project th at the air quality will continue to improve between now and 1985, with the technological advances that have been adopted. But, from 1985 to 2000, our analysis projected tha t the air quality would steadily get worse, because of the steady population growth in the region. What is in the air quality plan is, basically, a few more controls in most of the areas in which California, the I ederal Government, and the regional agencies have already adopted programs. It will mean additional stationary source controls on the existing industries, and those new industries that are seeking to locate in the bay area. It, also, will mean tha t we will have to more stringently clean up motor vehicle exhausts. And, also, we will have to implement some modest transportation controls. Very briefly, we recommend using available control technologies for the existing sources. Although stationary sources are relatively well controlled in the bay area, there is still some room for improvement. These improvements to use improved available control technologies are recommended and scheduled, or recommended to be implemented 

over the next 5 to 10 years. For new industries seeking to locate in the bay area, we recommend using lowest achievable emission rates, or the best available control 

technology. The plan also continues a new source review rule, which was written in the Clean Air Act of 1977, as a requirement for all regions seeking a 5-year extension, from 1982 to 1987. The bay area has had some

. form of a new source review rule in place since 1972. In the area of motor vehicle exhaust, we made three basic recommendations : One was tha t there be more stringent emissions standards, even more stringent than those currently contemplated in the Clean Air Act of 1977. If we are going to continue to accommodate the, approxi­ mately. 70-percent growth in vehicle miles traveled in the bay area, 

we will have to have even cleaner cars.

Also recommended is periodic inspection and maintenance of vehi­ cles, similar to that program established in numerous areas of the country already. Where we can insure that the exhaust systems of motor vehicles are continued at the lowest possible rates. And, last, it calls for a heavy-duty gasoline retrofit program. Even
1G

though the heavy-duty gas vehicle trucks do not account for a large

percentage of the travel, those exhaust systems are relatively uncontrolled and disproportionate to the travel tha t they actually account

for.

Lastly, the plan recommends tryin g to slow down the rate of growth 

of the vehicle travel throu gh a number of transportation system improvements. Briefly, this would be improving the transit systems in 

the bay area; improving the level of tran sit service; providing some 

preferential treatment for high-occupancy vehicles, carpools, vanpools, buses; providing more jitney services, carpool matching pro- *

grams, and vanpooling programs; and, then, developing more and 

safer bicycle systems throughout the bay area, so that we do not have 

to become so dependent on the motor vehicle for all of our travel.

But, for very short trips, we can accommodate some of them through *

bicycle systems.

With these measures, the staff analysis is th at we can meet the air 

quality standards set by the Federal Government, and do so in a 

manner that, still accommodates the growth projected in the region.

I ’d like to spend just a little bit of time on the solid waste plan. We 

have three basic problems in the area of solid waste management:

One is that we are run ning out of landfills. As we continue to generate municipal waste, we are filling the existing landfills relatively 

rapidly. For an example, to give you an idea of how much solid waste 

is generated in the bay area, you may have seen the Bank of America 

here in San Francisco. The bay area, as a region, generates enough 

solid waste to fill that building every 13 da vs.

As these solid landfill sites become filled, we have to find more 

acceptable sites, or we have to reduce the amount of solid waste 

generated.

The handling and management of hazardous waste is also a problem. We have only a number of sites for these materials in the bay area.

And, we need to more systematically look at how to tr eat those wastes 

regionally.

Lastly, with the building of the municipal wastewater facilities, we 

will be generating considerably more or larger amounts of sludge, and. 

this, in and of itself, will become a major disposal problem, especially 

as the waters become cleaner and cleaner.

So, with that, we've identified five major recommendations in a solid 

waste plan. They really build upon the county solid waste plans that 

are mandated in State legislation. And, then, they try to address a 

number of the regional problems tha t have not been treated in county ’

plans.

There has been a goal in our plan adopted of reducing the amount of 

refuse in landfills by 30 percent by the year 1982. And, hopefully, if 

we can provide sufficient incentives and remove some of the institutional and economic obstacles to recycling resource recovery, we can 

possibly accomplish that objective.

In the area of hazardous waste management, we need to improve the 

existing mechanisms tha t we have for treatin g that so tha t we can 

better enforce in-place regulation. We do, in that area, particularly, 

also need to generate a little better data on the volumes that we are 

talking about, and how to trans port them to the various proposed sites.

Lastly, there are a number of proposals for constructing facilities
17

to deal with the sludge th at is being gene rated by mu nic ipa l wastewa ter f acilities. A nd, the re is an on going stud y now’ by the w ast ew ate r 

agencies to look a t how t o in tegr ate t h at int o an o verall reg ion al solid 

waste plan, an d it conta ins a numb er of facilities to deal with this. 

Those fac ilitie s are reco mmended. Th ere are some constra int s, because, a numb er of tho se fac ilitie s do come hea d-o n wi th some of t he 

local a ir p ollut ion co ntrol reg ula tio ns, es pec ially as you try to generat e 

or recover e nergy from the ma nageme nt o f th at sludg e.

So, with th at , I ’d like to quickl y sum marize some of th e costs of the 

pla n on the fol low ing page .

Mr. R yan. Would you susp end a t t hat po int? I am going to tr y a nd 

conta ct the Go vernor to find ou t why they can t send any body dow n 

here fro m the a ir resources board. Th ere h as been a g re at reluc tan ce on 

the par t of anybody to show up he re t o ta lk ab ou t it, who h as an y kind 

of bo ard cap acity to speak . So, we’ll ta ke about a 10-min ute recess. A nd , we’ll co ntinue w ith you 

at tha t p oin t.

[B rief recess taken.]

Mr. R yan. The subcom mittee will come to ord er.

Before we beg in with yo ur testim ony again , Mr. Leo ng, I'd like to 

announce th at the wa ter qu ality contr ol bo ard has now changed th eir 

mind. In stea d o f------

A Voice. It ’s air.

Mr. Ryan [con tin uing ]. St ate ai r reso urces bo ard has now’ chang ed 

its mind. In stea d of sen din g a staff assis tant to expla in things , they are now’ sen din g Dr. M arjorie Ev an s, a mem ber of the bo ard , an d an 

attorney , who will te stify tom orrow abo ut th e ai r reso urces bo ard 

policies. An d, we th an k them fo r th ei r gra cio us chang e of min d.

Mr. Leo ng?

Mr. Leong. O K. I'll very quickly tr y to finish the las t two briefing 

chart s. Inste ad of going —in ter ms of fig ur ing the cost of the plan — 

throug h a line item descrip tio n of each o f the elements o f t he plan, I ’d 

like to ju st go ri ght to the bottom. Our estim ate o f t he overall prog rams is that , on an annualized basis 

between 1975 an d th e year 2000, the se pr og rams fo r wa ter qu ali ty, 

wa ter supp ly, solid waste, an d ai r qu ality impro veme nt will cost ap ­

prox im ate ly $540 to $620 million a year. Some of tho se are new’ costs. Some of th ose are new’ costs wh ich w ill 

have to be pa rtia lly borne b y local gov ernme nts. Ma ny of these costs are to be con tin uatio ns of e xis tin g State , Fe de ral, an d local g ra nt pr ogram s. So th at even wi thou t the envir onme nta l ma nageme nt pla n 

ma ny of these prog rams will continu e. An d, they hav e been so noted.

Mr. Cun ning ha m. W hat ’s the im pa ct of t he loss of St ate reve nues 

on this figu re, as fa r as yo ur ab ility to meet matc hin g fu nd req uirements?

Mr. L eong. Are you referring , specifically, to th e imp act o f p ropo sitio n 13?

Mr. Cun ning ha m. Yes. The Ja rv is-B ro wn—r ig ht . [L au gh ter.]

Mr. Leong. I t diff ers bv pa rtic ul ar prog ram . For exa mp le, in the 

first prog ram, the mu nic ipa l wa ste wa ter prog ram . Cur rently, 75 pe rcent of th at is Fe de ral gra nts ; 12i/> perce nt of th at is St ate gr an ts; 

and, the n, 1 2 ^ perce nt is local. Al ong wi th the rec ent electio n th at
18

did pass Ja rvis-Gann was a State dea n water bond bill that did pass. 

So, it should not affect tha t particular program.

The county surface runoff program may be impacted, in that one of 

the measures that we identify as the best management practice is to 

increase the frequency of streetsweeping. That may be one of the 

services that is cut back.

So, it depends on the particular program, what the impact will be 

overall. But, you could probably be safe in saying the passage of proposition 13 will not help air quality, water quality, solid waste improvement.

OK. Last, in terms of carry ing out the plan, there are a number of 

key points that we think are important. The environmental management task force, the policy body tha t was set up, was an ad hoc committee set up to help us guide the development of the original plan.

Our overall evaluation of that is tha t it is a good idea to involve 

all of the various interest groups in that. So, we have now established 

permanent procedures for integrating tha t environmental planning 

within the existing ABAG committee structure.

We have, also, intentions and plans to periodically update the plan. 

George mentioned the concern of the locally elected officials that they 

get an annual update as to, not only what we are doing in the bay area 

for environmental quality, but, also, what other areas of the country 

are doing.

We currently are beginning to work on getting management agreements from the various implementing agencies, so t ha t we can begin 

actually carrying out the actions and recommendations tha t have been 

adopted by our general assembly.

And, as an example of that, we’ve listed a number of the cooperative 

planning arrangem ents tha t we have with the various agencies, both 

regionally, State, to conduct a ir, water, and solid waste management 

planning.

With that, perhaps we could answer any questions you have about 

any aspect of the program.

Mr. Ryan. All right. What happens if the Federal Government rejects the plan. I^ets get Mr. Macris in on this, too. Or, anyway, it 

doesn’t matter.

Mr. M agris. Well, it really depends on the specific element of the 

plan, since there are different Federal mandates and there are different 

provisions. John could respond to what would happen if the water 

plan was rejected, and, 1 guess, I could respond with respect to what 

would happen if the air quality plan was rejected.

Mr. R yan. OK.

Mr. Davis. In terms of the affected elements of the program, I think, 

if the plan was not accepted, it probably wouldn't affect the present 

program of sewage treatment constructions, simply, because th at's in 

response to existing laws.

It would affect our ability to begin a regional surface runoff control 

program. In that there is no mandate for th at type of program beyond 

the 208 plan, itself.

The same is probably true for some of the other activities listed in 

the water-quality plan. Although, in some cases they may be undertaken anyway by the regional water quality control board as part of its 

responsibilities.
Mr. Ryan. Lets talk about money. Who is going to pay ?

Mr. Davis. As far as municipal sewage treatment facilities, I think 

tha t our indications—although it’s not 100 percent certain—from some 

of the discharges is th at they feel they won’t be too adversely affected 

bv proposition 13. Because, first of all. the construction programs, as 

Gene mentioned, 87i/2 percent outside funding. And, the local share, in 

most cases, can be collected as user charges, r ather than as part of the 

property taxes. So, they feel tha t they are pretty well set up, or ready 

to obtain the money for their part.

Mr. Ryan. Can we talk about any kind of general percentage assigned to Federal, State, and local agencies ?

Mr. Davis. In terms of the total numbers for the plan ?

Mr. R yan. Yes. You got a figure over here, for instance, toward the 

back, of around $600 million. I guess, that’s a nice even, round number.

Mr. Davis. 1 think, we’d probably just have to go by a program 

element. And, as far as water quality is concerned, just looking at the 

numbers, it seems something like 75-percent State and Federal money. 

The industrial facilities construction would be private money. The 

surface runoff plans would be the countries and local revenues. And, 

the other costs are distributed among State and local agencies. Water 

supply, the costs would be home locally, largely by water agencies and 

the sewerage agencies. But, again, I guess-----

Mr. Ryan. Let’s go down to the bottom line.

Mr. Davis. OK.

Mr. R yan. You are talking about—I don't take that lower number. 

I don’t think I've ever seen—in my experience in government—where 

we ever came in at the low estimate. It always is the high estimate, and 

then past that. Let’s take this $624 million there. And what percentage 

of that total would be Federa l; and, what percentage S tate: and, what 

percentage local ? Assuming it’s roughly ?

Mr. Davis. Just a moment, please, sir.

Mr. Ryan. OK.

Mr. Davis. Again, we have to do it by a particular program.

Mr. Ryan. And how does it come out on the bottom line ?

Mr. Davis. At a rough estimate, I would say something like 50- 

percent Federal, 15-percent State, and the remainder local.

Mr. Ryan. It ’s 15-percent State. Th at’s 35-percent local, of, say, $600 

million. So, we are talking about $200 million.

Mr. Leong. Now, of tha t local, that is divided into public and private, 

as well. For example, on the stationary source industry cost, that is 

almost all private cost.

Mr. R yan. If it’s priv ate costs or public costs, it's a wet blanket on 

furthe r development, among other things. And, that, in itself, is a 

drag on economic growth, and the normal kinds of movement that you 

have to have in order to survive. OK, I think that’s an interesting 

figure.

Was there any comment, or any discussion, anything written in this 

plan that had to do with the regulation of residential conveniences, 

such as dishwashers, clothes dryers, that sort of thing? I noticed that 

there’s some reference to lawnmowers.

Mr. Davis. No. There was nothing in the plan tha t would affect 

household appliances, other than the water conservation measures.
20

Mr. Ryan. OK. What about population control; any reference to 

tha t ?

Air. Leong. There’s no reference to population controls. As p art of 

the underlying effort, the first thing we have to do is to make population 

projections for the anticipated growth within the region. And, ABAG 

undertook a very extensive effort in interviewing various local cities, 

iCOunties, special districts on what they anticipated to be the needs 

within particular jurisdictions. And, then, th roug h the advisory committee, they also developed certain fertility and migration assumptions 

for the region. We developed a range of population forecast tha t we •

felt were equally plausible, depending on what assumption you made 

in the start.

Mr. Ryan. But, you made no effort to control tha t in any way ?

Mr. Leong. Absolutely not. w

Mr. Ryan. All right. What about Department of Transportation 

and Housing and Urban Development agency, did you make any 

recommendations ? Is there anything in there stipulated, or any reference to present policies of the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development in regard to the location of construction of housing?

Or, tax advantages, so that you can control or encourage development 

in the central city, rather than continuing to spread out further, 

thereby causing more pollution rather than less ?

Mr. Leong. OK. In the original staff-drafted plan in December, there 

was a number of development and land-use management proposals.

The purpose of these was to reduce the amount of vehicle travel in 

the region, and, thereby, to improve air quality.

In the review process, the environmental management task force 

took those specific actions out. And throughout all of the following 

review, all of those specific land use and development measures have 

been deleted from the plan.

Mr. R yan. Was there any consideration by the staff of what measure might be taken to encourage development of housing in the 

cities, in areas th at are presently already developed, through high rise, 

or redevelopment, or anything else—as a means of getting rid of the 

air pollution?

Mr. Leong. Yes. Those were parts of the original proposals that the 

staff did prepare.

Mr. Ryan. And what happened.

Mr. Leong. Those were deleted from the plan by the policy bodies.

Mr. Ryan. By the ABAG board, itself, or whom '

Air. Diridon. Congressman, I am sorry. I was writing a note to *

share with you.

Air. Ryan. Well, I 'd just as soon have the staff continue to answer 

the questions, if they can. If they can’t answer it, just say so.

Air. Leong. They were in the presentations to the environmental task 

force, which was our first policy body. All of the references to development controls and land-use management proposals were deleted from 

the plan.

Air. Ryan. How was the action taken to delete it? Wh at action was 

taken? Where?

Air. Leong. The environmental task force voted to delete that entire 

section of the plan.
21

Mr. Ryan. All right. What did the Department of Transportation 

do to work with your staff in putting this plan together ?

Mr. Leong. The Department of Transportation was peripherally 

involved in some of our advisory committee activities developing the 

air quality maintenance plan. They operate mainly with the metropolitan transporta tion commission.

In the bay area ABAG is not the metropolitan planning organization responsible for prep aring the regional transportation plan.

Mr. Ryan. I know that.

Mr. Leong. So tha t the involvement of the Department of Transportation—

Mr. Ryan. Should they be ?

Mr. Leong. I would say, they should be. More importantly, we did 

work very closely with the metropolitan transportation commission 

(MTC) in trying to insure tha t our transportation portion of the air 

(piality plan was completely consistent with th eir regional transp ortation plan.

Mr. Ryan. Did EP A try to work with DOT ? Do you know ?

Mr. Leong. Yes. They have, with MTC, a number of committees that 

they operate with. Anti, then, at a Federal level, there have been joint 

guidelines that have been recently published by the Department of 

Transportation and EP A on how to coordinate and integrate the 

transportation plan?

Mr. Ryan. How about HUD ?

Mr. Leong. HUD also has a memorandum of understanding with the 

Environmental Protection Agency to make th e programs of housing 

and environment compatible.

Mr. Ryan. Well, th at ’s all very well in writing. I don’t see much 

evidence of it. Go ahead.

Mr. Cunningham. The fact that you’ve had a collective effort by 

the counties, and different municipalities within the area is just line. 

A lot of people do that. I guess, my major concern now is what is being 

done to hold it together. So th at as the growth occurs there’s consistency in permits. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Mr. Leong. The real reason that, we developed a cooperative planning effort with these other agencies is because they, ultimately, 

would be responsible f or the implementation.

Fo r example, in the area of air quality, since the authority for 

implementing the various programs is very diverse, we have a memorandum of understanding with the air pollution control district and 

the metropolitan transportation commission that those parts of the 

plan tha t deal with the ir statutory responsibility are developed by 

them. So th at they can live with what ultimately is in the plan.

In the area of stationary source controls, the air pollution control district has taken a board action that they will pursue those 

actions as identified in the plan. And, it’s because they, working 

very closely with us, developed those.

So, the inten t of the cooperative planning efforts was not just liecause it made sense. I t was because we felt very strongly, in the long 

run, it would insure the greatest possibility for actual implementation and being carried out.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
9 9

Now, Mr. Diridon, I would like to run this my own way here. We 

are going to have to make a little change. Mayor Condon, of San 

Mateo, cannot lie with us this afternoon. I'd like Mayor Condon, if 

he can, to submit his statement for the record now. He’s got the 

American Legion down there. And, I can sympathize with that.

John, would you come up ?

[Witness sworn.]

STATEMENT OP JOH N P. CONDON, MAYOR, SAN MATEO, CALIF.

Mr. C *

ondon. Thank you for your consideration, Mi-. Chairman, 

in hearing me. I ’ve got 10,000 Legionnaires at a convention in San 

Mateo today.

Mr. Ryan. And, you have my sympathy along with it. «• Mr. Condon. Thank you. sir.

Mr. Chairm an and gentlemen of the subcommittee, my name is 

John F. Condon, and I am the mayor of the city of San Mateo, a 

nice community IS miles south of San Francisco,'on the San Francisco peninsula.

I appreciate being given the opportunity of offering a few remarks 

relative to the environmental management plan for the San Francisco Bay region, as it will have a profound effect on our city if it is 

adopted in its present form.

I will start off by discussing the land-use plan, which has been 

largely wiped out, much to the relief of my council and colleagues 

in other cities on the peninsula. That one portion of the plan was 

in distinct bad odor.

The balance of the plans have a tremendous impact on our cities.

Both in their effect on the everyday living of the average citizen and 

to the expense to which he will be put, as well as its impact on industry.

I he air pollution portion of the plan can be argued at a cost of 

anywhere from $100 million to $250 million, depending upon who 

you talk to.

M e feel the greatest impact will be to make industry in the bay area 

noncompetitive with the rest of industry should they be put to the 

expense of such a mammoth program.

As to the water-treatment plan, we in San Mateo have been subjected 

to an indignity, in that we were forced to rebuild our water treatment 

plan t by edict of the regional water control board in 1968, at a cost of 

several million dollars. This carried us to primary treatment, with deep «

water discharge. And. we were assured this was adequate with the 

chlorine treatment given the residue. However, 6 years later, we were 

mandated to build a plant producing drinking water quality discharge 

that is costing $20 million. Now, it is true that S tate and Federal governments did finance $16 million of th at money. However, the city of 

San Mateo was forced to spend another $4 million, as their portion, to 

bring that plant’s discharges up to almost drinkable standards.

This is a distinct waste and a heavy annual operating ex}>ense to the 

city, due to the increased manpower requirements, and $600,000 worth 

of energy, plus the increased costs of chlorine.

I his operating expense is not being taken care of by any grant.

It is our suggestion that this is a distinct case of overskill. And, we feel
23

it is a good example of why each city’s requirements should be judged 

on a case-by-case basis.

With regard to the requirement of treating municipal discharges to 

high levels of quality, the city feels that, if such be the case, there 

should be an aggressive funding policy on distribution systems to reuse this expensive water in a useful way.

Additionally, realistic standards tha t would permit the use of this 

chemically pure water by the city, in its present system, and golf 

courses should be arrived at. Rather than as it exists today, where it is 

going to go to waste due to a State department of public health ruling 

tha t it should not be used in parks for fear it just might, possibly, 

cause disease in humans.

Presently, the Federal program on drink ing water is moving toward 

overkill again. Requiring, as it does, granulated, activated carbon 

treatment of all drinking water. This too shocking approach to the 

situation should be considered on a case-by-case basis, which is not the 

case now.

The plan, in its discussion of solid waste material, discusses very 

much in detail the matter of recycling waste material. Again, there is 

no provision for the money that it will take to effect such a program. 

And, it should be cost effective, not a tax eater.

If the Federal Government is to require cleaner cars, as called for 

in the 1977 Clean Air Act amendment, they should be decided on a 

case-by-case basis, rather than penalizing Californians, which seems 

to be the fashionable thing to do these days.

On the question o f increasing tolls on bridges for the express pu rpose of public transit service, this should not 'be done. It should be used 

to also take care of bridge maintenance and roads which are the 

approaches to the bridges, which are suffering very badly, at this 

time, as evidenced by Highway 92/101, overpass and approach to 

the cities of San Mateo and Foster City. Also, 40-passenger buses, for 

instance, cost about $90,000; an average ridership is in the neighlwrhood of 4 persons per vehicle mile. Mileage on the buses is about 5 

gallons of diesel fuel, which makes it 20-person miles per gallon, the 

average effectiveness of the fuel expended. A Volkswagen Rabbit will 

get 30 miles to the gallon. You don’t have to pay the driver. And four 

seats cost $2,500 each. So, there is a case to be made for the automobile 

as an efficient means of transportation.

A determined effort is being made to force the Bay Area Rapid 

Transit (BA RT) system on the San Francisco peninsula. And, the expense of that proposal has been estimated by engineers to approximate $1 billion, with a leadtime of 10 years before it comes available 

to citizens commuting to San Francisco.

A good case could be made for upgrading the existing Southern 

Pacific Railroad service, at far, far less expense through an Amtrak 

subsidy, if necessary.

Another provision of the plan calls for controls on smaller gasoline 

engines, such as lawnmowers and powersaws. To enforce pollution 

measures on these smaller gasoline engines makes the Government look 

downright foolish, considering the small amount of usage and pollution such usage entails.

I will not continue, on in my critique of the individual items of this 

plan, but, will point out that this plan contemplates the establishment
24

of another layer of government. And, an impressive layer at th at, for

the taxpayers of the region to finance and attem pt to cope with.

Presently, the cities of the nine-county region have home rule and 

can approach their legislators with the simple exertion of going downtown and attending a city council meeting, or going to city hall.

With government functioning as it does, in no time at all, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) would be implementing 

the provisions of this plan at local public expense, and becoming increasingly a bureaucracy in size and scope.

At this stage, 1 would point out tha t we have the benefit of the <

Jarvis-Gann plan, sometimes known as proposition 13, which definitely limits the amount of money to be spent by the taxpayers in 

this State on the cost of government. I would point out that JarvisGann's initiative intent was to limit government, not just to seek *

alternate ways of financing government.

Tha t to me is the best argument 1 can give you for revising the laws 

you have passed th at have resulted in the environmental management 

plan, which ABAG has put before you. 1 consider it to be a disaster 

to this region in its cost and effect.

Whereas, the adoption of the plan may have been a financial feasibility prior to proposition 13, it certainly is not now. And, it should be 

considered tha t in the light, as an additional burden, could very easily 

cause a lot of trouble to industry, the cities, and the economy.

We have very effective agencies, presently, in existence t hat have 

been formed through join t powers agreements between the cities and 

the counties, which cost a minimum to maintain and have proven effective to date. And, I recommend th at you gentlemen consider th at as a 

solution to carrying out your program in pollution and regulation.

For the record, the city of San Mateo did instruct its delegate to 

ABAG to vote for the passage of this plan, in his amended form.

However, we went along only because we felt that if wTe did not accept the plan in its amended form, we probably would have gotten something worse—something much worse.

But, the reason we are standing here today, is because the laws under 

which we are operating are too regulative and force us into th is situation. We feel tha t you gentlemen in Congress can amend some of these 

laws that are the basis for some of the very tough regulations published 

by the various departments in the executive branch. And, we hope tha t 

you will.

And, I than k you for the opportunity to appear before you, Mr.

Chairman. " «

If you have any questions, I ’d be very happy-----

Mr. Ryan. I do. Thank you, very much, Mr. Mayor. And it ’s good to 

see you again.

Mr. Condon. Nice seeing you, sir.

Mr. Ryan. And, my best wishes to the 10,000 Legionnaires you have 

with you in convention.

Mr. Condon. I will.

Mr. Ryan. I hope they will leave the city standing while they get 

throu gh there.

Mr. Condon. They are doing very well, so far.

Mr. R yan. That’s great.

I think, the question tha t makes me most curious of all is the reference you make on page 5, wdiere you say: We felt tha t if we did not
accept the plan in its amended form, we probably would have gotten 

something much worse. I have heard tha t over, and over, and over 

again for months. I t was the reason why there was such a pressure on 

me to bring this subcommittee out here before AB AG took action to 

approve the plan, or disapprove. And, they approved.

It was the reason why, I think, there was discussion of me coming 

out ahead of time, or this committee coming out ahead of time; and 

why there was the pressure there was on the land-use portion, eventually dropped.

And, you say it again here. We felt that if we did not accept the 

plan in its amended form, we probably would have gotten something 

much worse. Now, I would like to know, if you can, what you meant by 

tha t in particu lar; who you had heard it from; and what tha t something might be?

Mr. Condon. I heard it from various individuals, whose names I 

can’t recall. But, I can pinpoint it, where it came down to me.

I voted for this plan. It was—in th e city of San Mateo, because I 

was told in this public meeting, out in an open session, tha t if we don't 

vote for this-----

Mr. Ryan. Tn the city council meeting?

Mr. Condon. I n the city council meeting—that we are going to get 

something much worse. And, this plan was anathema to me.

Mr. Ryan. Who said tha t ?

Mr. Condon. Well, I can get the minutes for you, and see if it’s in 

there. I don’t know which individual did.

Mr. R yan. I ’d like to just trace it back, if I could, and see what was 

the original source.

Mr. Condon. You want the genesis of it?

Mr. R yan. Yes.

Mr. Condon. All right, sir. I ’ll do mv best to find it for you.

Mr. Ryan. If you could. I ’d appreciate it. When they say, something. did they indicate a nything specific?

Mr. Condon. No, sir. First of all, when I first took exception to the 

plan, it was when the land-use portion of it was in it.

That was dropped out. And, the council said, well, now th at being 

the case, this might make it more palliative to us. We’d better take it, 

or we are going to get something worse.

Mr. R yan. I ’m going to see if we can find out more about that p ar ­

ticular element. But, in your case, as a single city council, if tha t was 

the motivating factor, do you feel ha ppy with the plan as it is?

Mr. Condon. No, sir. I don’t feel happy. I ’ve just, as you can see in 

my presentation there, I don’t care for it at all.

Mr. Ryan. Yes. I t’s presumably a disaster.

Mr. Condon. Yes. sir.

Mr. Ryan. Can you give me—in spite of—anything fur the r than 

your very excellently written testimony here, as an individual member—as a long-time member of a city council, now, and a mayor, and so 

on—what effect, do you t hink it will have on your city, and cities in 

general ?

Mr. Condon. What I am afra id of, Mr. Chairman, is that implementation of this plan will be given to ABAC, and it will become a 

regional government layer, that our citizens will lose the ability to 

be able to go before their council and complain about something to
26

be fixed. They'll get the reaction, I am sorry, that's been dictated by 

ABAG, or by some higher office. And, they don't get the satisfaction—it’s even—the county is even far away, today. But, to put on 

a nine-county regional governmental headquarters over us, is even 

worse.

There is one thing, Mr. ( ’hairman. I'd like to ask you to consider. 

In order for the cities to get a financial grant, of any kind, we have 

to go through ABAG. And, that is the stick I ’ve tried to withdraw 

from ABAG. And, 1 can offer testimony to that from Mr. Martin, 

who is here. That 1 wanted to get out of AB AG ; but we’re stuck, 

because we have no place to go when it comes to the business of grants.

And, you have put these requirements, mandated, upon us; have 

put us to the point we’ve got to use Federal money to get them, or

we couldn’t pay.

Mr. Ryan. Do you believe that the feeling, which you expressed 

is a feeling that is supported by a significant number, perhaps a 

majority, of the people who are members of ABAG?

Mr. Condon. I would say a significant number. Now, if there was 

a majority, why, something could have been done. But, obviously, 

there hasn 't been any effort. I think, our city has a specific objection. 

San Carlos also.

Mr. Ryan. Well, what about in Alameda Countv and Contra Costra 

County ?

Mr. Condon. I couldn't answer that, sir.

Mr. Ryan. You weren't there at the meeting, so you couldn’t-----

Mr. Condon. Our representative, as far as the meeting was concerned, was Mrs. Baker.

Mr. R yan. Well, thank you, very much, for being here, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Condon. Thank you, sir.

Mi1

. R yan. I t’s good to see you again, as one of my bosses.

Mr. Condon. Oh, gee, I use t hat line myself.

Mr. Ryan. It’s a good one.

Mr. Diridon, Chairperson Diridon ?

Mr. Diridon. If it would please the Congressmen, I ’d like to 

invite-----

Mr. Ryan., I recognize the gentleman, along side of you there, to 

your right. I've seen him before on many occasions.

Mr. Martin. I think so.

Mr. Ryan. 1 always respect his competence. I don't say, I always 

agree, lo ir re always worth hearing. Now, would you identify yourself, please.

Mr. Martin. Councilman Dave Martin, from Burlingame.

Mr. Diridon. Dave is a past president of the mayor’s committee for 

the county of San Mateo.

Mr. Ryan. Right.

Mr. Diridon. And a highly respected leader in the community. And, 

I thought tha t you made—he carries your comment properly.

Mr. Ryan. I ’ve made that statement many times.

[Witness sworn.]
27

STATEMENT OF ROD DIRIDON, CHAIRPERSON, SANTA CLARA

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND PRES IDENT, ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

Mr. Diridon. I have a very br ief sta tem ent to rea d int o the record. 

An d, then I ’d like to answer any que stio ns th at you mi gh t have. An d, 

pa rticul ar ly , ad dre ss a few th at were asked ear lie r.

Mr. R yan. OK.

Mr. D iridon. The re marks we re des igned to intro duce rem ark s fro m 

« the A BA G staff, an d, I ’ll p res ent th em as such.

An d, let me beg in by apolo giz ing f or Mayor Moscone a nd f or Dian e 

Fe inste in. Bo th have been called i nto em ergency bu dget sessions. Th ey 

won’t be able to be he re to day. I assume the y w ill c ontac t yo ur oftice and

• tr y to reschedule th e tes tim ony at some othe r tim e du ring yo ur sta y 

here .

Th e stat em ent is p res ented as f ollo ws:

I th in k the staff has done a g ood job summ ari zin g t he proces s we’ve 

com pleted to d ate. I ’d lik e to close our form al presen tatio n wi th a few 

obs erv ations about wha t we’ve lea rned fro m th e process.

We l ear ned th at it is possible f or local governm ent to do th is job on 

tim e, acc ordin g t o a severe tim e schedule set by Congress. You, a s our 

con gressio nal re presentat ive, s hould con sider how to develop incentives 

fo r lo cal gover nm ent s to do good plann in g in a time ly fas hio n in ot he r 

area s.

Ce rta inly region s t h at can pro duce high -qua lity pla ns on time ought 

no t to be penalized me rely because othe r region s, either b y intention 

or by accident, lag in p re pa ring acceptable p lan s. T hat ’s the first t hat 

we’d like to stre ss, an d it ’s pa ramou nt in ou r mi nds at this po int .

Seco nd, th ere m ust be clear, concise e xp lan ati on s o f F ed eral r equir ements and policy guida nce to ass ist local governm ents in me eting tlie 

requirements.

Th e clea r, early un de rstand ing, fo r example, of the san ctio ns th at 

may be im posed un de r th e Clean A ir A ct wou ld hav e p rev ented people 

fro m ask ing us, as loca l elected officials at te m pt in g to ca rry ou t congressional m an da te s: Wh y a re you d oin g th is 1

It 's not enough for Co ngress, or E PA , t o say, thi s is w hat we will do

* to you, if you do n’t come up wi th a pl an to sa tis fy us. Inste ad , Congress and E P A hav e to fully pa rticip ate fro m the begin nin g of the 

process. In this region , I am plea sed th at we have ha d the acti ve encou rag em ent a nd sup po rt of P au l De Falco , E P A reg ion al rep res enta-

“ five and ad m in istra to r, th ro ug ho ut ou r prog ram. If all E PA

ad ministra tors were as cre ative and supp ortiv e of local process as 

Pa ul has been, it would go a lon g way towa rd eli minating th e usversus-them syndrom e th at seems to pre vade th is prog ram an d other 

Fe de ral p rog ram s.

Thi rd po in t: Whil e supp ortiv e of ou r process to deve lop th is plan, 

Pa ul h as also no t w aiv ere d fro m the p ro pe r p ositio n t h at req uir em ents 

of Fe de ral law mu st be met. Th is is very im po rta nt. As po inted out 

in the cover lette r to th e plan, local officials in this reg ion are very
28

concerned tha t other regions of the country may not be required to 

satisfy the requirements of the Federal law.

Both Pau l DeFalco and EP A Administrator Douglas Costle have 

indicated to us EPA’s intentions to adm inister the Federal law equitably throughou t the Nation. We intend to hold EP A to that commitment, and would hope to receive the support of Congress in tha t 

interpretation.

Fou rth p oint: Turning to another concern of local government, let 

me talk a little about money.

1 am sure I don't need to tell you the public concern, as evidenced 

by the enactment of proposition 13 for public spending. We know, 

however, t ha t at the same time, the voters of California approved 

the State’s Clean Water Bond Act. This is public supp ort for a clean 

environment. But, because of proposition 13, local government must 

be given the right to reexamine all their programs and make choices.

This does not mean tha t environmental protection programs will 

be out. But, local governments have to be able to make a careful determination of what level of environmental protection will be 

implemented.

Officials at the State and Federal level have to appreciate the situation local government faces with respect to financing government 

services. We are not saying, we won’t carry out these plans we’ve 

developed. We are saying, we are going to be careful how we do implement the plan.

Finally, I ’d like to say tha t our plan asks Congress to reexamine the 

underlying philosophy of the Clean Air Act. Many people have characterized th at philosophy as to risk. Recently, E PA proposed a change 

in the oxidant standards, making it easier for regions, such as this one, 

to meet Federal requirements. T hat change did not, of course, change 

the underlying philosophy of the act. We would ask that Congress 

review the act, its requirements, to make sure that local governments 

can do the job asked of them, while meeting other public goals such as 

providing jobs and housing for the ir citizens.

That's the formal statement th at would wrap up the technical presentations of the stall'. And, I’d be very pleased to comment further, if 

you’d choose ?

I thin k it would be helpful—not so much for you, Leo, who has been 

here for a long time—but, for you r other representatives to recognize 

the stru cture of ABAC, which I hasten to say, Mayor Condon does not. 

I've talked this over on one occasion with him. A pparently, he is not 

aware th at AB AG is, in fact, a joint powers auth ority; the same kind 

of a body that he was suggesting be created.

AB AG was established in 11161 for the pure and simple purpose of 

protecting local government in the bay area from regional, State, or 

Federal control. In fact, all of the California councils of government 

were created using the same kinds of joint powers authorities rather 

than under State law as with the regional governments in the other 

parts of the Nation.

As a device for protecting local government from State and Federal 

control, ABAG has no power. Th at’s a fiat statement tha t I will support in any way you’d like. The only power that ABAG receives is tha t 

which is specifically delegated by the local government representatives 

tha t are signators to the joint powers authority. And that power can be
29

take n a wa y as qu ick ly as the ne xt gene ral assem bly can be called, if i t’s 

abused.

Th e jo in t powe rs au th or ity th at was created is administ ered 

th ro ug h—in th e case of EM P—1 diffe ren t orga nizatio n lev els : Th e 

ge ne ral asse mbly of ABA G, wh ich consists of a del ega te from each 

one of the 87 memb er cities, an d 7 member cou nties cre ate policy on 

major issues. In A BAG a m aj or ity o f each o f tho se bodies is req uired 

fo r ap prov al. Th e 7 cou nties must ha ve a m aj or ity in fa vo r an d the 

87 cit ies m ust vo te a m aj or ity in fa vo r f or p olicy to be crea ted .

* Th ere a re subcom mittees of th ose org aniza tio ns. T he executiv e bo ard 

meets on a mon thly basis. Th e gene ral asse mbly, by th e way, meets 

qu arterly . Th e exe cutive b oa rd m eets o n a mon thly ba sis, to ca rry ou t 

th e busines s of th e organiz ati on. And , then , subcom mittees of th e

* exe cutive board m eet to take on specific tasks.

F or exa mple, a sub com mittee o f th e exe cutive boa rd is the env iro nme nta l ma nageme nt ta sk forc e, wh ich was g ive n th e res po nsibility t o 

ha nd le the E M P. T hat sub com mittee repo rte d to the reg ion al pl an ni ng 

com mittee , w hic h the n repo rte d to the ex ecutive boa rd a nd th en to th e 

general assembly. Th e ge ne ral assembly fina lly, e stablished th e policy 

th at ad op ted th e ve ry di sti nc tly modified plan , which is now being 

tran sm itt ed to th e Sta te an d Fe de ra l Gover nm ent . Th e E M P in its 

ad op ted form has p ra ct ically u nanim ous endorse me nt fro m the cities, 

countie s, and in terest gro up s of the bay are a.

We hav e ha d a new s rele ase d istrib ut ed to you, th at was subm itted 

rec ently by AB AG , th at identif ies th e leve l of su pp or t th at th e pl an 

now ha s.

I can tell you t h at it ’s a di stin ct difference f rom th e dra ft ve rsion o f 

th e plan , wh ich Dr. Le ong des cribed as a la un dr y lis t of all al te rn atives. Th e la un dr y lis t was req ues ted by the envir on mental manageme nt task force mem bers , who were m ajor ity elected officials, b ack in 

Dec emb er 1977. T hat was ba dly m isi nterpr eted by interest groups, and 

by the media as be ing th e pla n. In fact, it wa s merely meant to be a 

lis tin g of a ll alt erna tiv es t h at cou ld be selected from.

Once those a lte rnatives were selected, the ones that were acce ptable— 

aft er 600 hou rs of pu blic heari ngs, 1,500 pa ges of publi c tes tim ony— 

the pl an ha s been foun d to be very accep tab le to th e region. An d, in 

- fa ct, th is process is th e bes t tex tbo ok e xam ple of de mocracy in actio n

th at I have ever seen. And , it ’s been des cribed as such by others who 

have watched.

Mr. R yan. You sell v ery well. B ut , I question some of the th in gs you

* said, an d th e we ight of w ha t you say , because o f wha t I ’ve he ar d before. Be ginn ing with th is morning earlier, when a TV re po rter ou t 

there quo ted you as sa ying t hat I was i ll-prep ared . Is th at tr ue ?

Mr. Diridon. I indica ted to th e TV r ep or te r th at yo ur i nf or mat ion 

was obsolete, as it app ea red fro m th ei r q uestions. Yes, sir .

Mr. R yan . W ell, I ap prec iate th e com ment. I th in k th at ce rta inly 

ind ica tes some thing to the rest o f m y staff. W e’ve been working on t his 

th in g fo r months. I a pp reciate th at .

Mr. Diridon. I t app ea rs that yo ur sta ff ha s been wo rking------

Mr. R yan. O n Ma y 11—if I m ay go on, an d go a li ttle f urt her with 

th is—in th e Sa n Ma teo T imes th ere is a refere nce here to a p ress co nferenc e whic h yo u he ld, in which Su pe rviso r R od Di rid on , S an ta Clara

3 3 -3 9 5— 71 •3
30

County Supervisor, said at the press conference in San Francisco that, 

“Eva n dropped.the idea of a congressional hearing a month ago.” 

Mr. Diridon. That’s not accurate.

Mr. Ryan. Well, OK. I just wanted to have you say that for the record. So we can indicate that what the press is saying is inaccurate. Or, 

the press’ comment is inaccurate.

And, then, there is another paragra ph here which I would like you 

to comment o n: “Diridon has said Ryan has since recognized that the 

controversial EM P is widely accepted throu ghou t the region due to 

many changes in the last 2 months.” Now, “Ryan has since recognized”—I wonder where you got t ha t information? I never said that 

myself. I wonder if someone else told you that ?

Mr. Dirtdon. That’s the information tha t we had presented to us 

during the hearings. That you were much more convinced of the viability of the plan as a result of the modifications.

Mr. Ryan. Well, you’re quoting me, then?

Mr. Diridon. Not directly. I am quoting information tha t-----

Mr. Ryan. Your impression of what I said ?

Mr. Diridon. No, not—I was quoting the impressions that I was 

receiving from public testimony from those individuals who were 

aware of your concerns about the plan.

Mr. Ryan. Now, you’re saying tha t T didn’t—that you didn 't say 

tha t the idea of a congressional hearing a month ago was your 

concern ?

Mr. P irtdon. Mv statement at t hat time was th at the original hearing. prior to the adoption of the plan, had been dropped by you. And, 

that you were intending to have a congressional hearing after the plan 

was adopted. And, that I had hoped tha t tha t hearing would dwell 

principally on how to make sure that the plan was maintained intact.

Mr. Ryan. Well, we have the repo rter here for the San Mateo Times 

who wrote that story. I t might be interesting to ask her. I don’t really 

want to embarrass the reporter, though, with the source of th at story. 

Ma vbe we can have the staff talk with her later.

The reason I ask these questions is because you make comments such 

as—and again, I quote the story from this same article, in the same 

press conference—and this is in quotes. “A plan that is acceptable to 

virtuallv all local government, business, labor, and environmental 

groups.” Is that substantially correct there?

Mr. P trtdon. That’s substantially accurate. Yes. In the form that 

had been modified. Yes.

Mr. Ryan. Yes. Well, I presume the reason I ask that is because you 

seem to have a tendency to make enthusiastic statements which are a 

little bit larger than, perhaps, the facts might warrant. In the case of 

my own comments, anyway, T think your interpretation of what I said 

at that meeting is open to question, of course. But it was certainly not 

my intention to indicate that. I believe, there was any kind of wide 

acceptance because of the changes. I didn’t make th at comment th en : 

and, T don’t make it now. In fact, I don’t believe there’s wide acceptance, at all, of this particular plan. On any kind of a referendum basis, 

I question whether it would get anything like the suppo rt of proposition 13, as a matter of fact.

Th at’s part of the problem I have. I am t ryi ng to find out whether 

or not this partic ular plan is a result of those who ar e: (a) Enthusiasts
31

for regional government; (Z>) those who tend to believe there is some 

value in cleaning up the water in this fashion; and (c) who are joined 

together throughout the bay area by means of the various city councils 

and the structures tha t we have, without any kind of referendum to the 

people.

No one, that I know of, on tha t AB AG Executive Board runs for 

office to the ABAG Executive Board. And, years ago, when I was in the 

State legislature, with Jac k Knox, as well as some others, I was a 

very strong proponent of a regional body in this bay area to be the 

regional government, to get elected to the job. So the reason for it is 

rather obvious. Because, I believe, that there would be, then, a referendum in which people, who were making these decisions, would stand 

for election and be challenged fo r those particu lar kinds of decisions.

And, I don’t know, today—and, this first effort th at’s gotten this far, 

because of Federal legislation—tha t this kind of approach to the resolution of pollution problems—which are serious in this country—is, 

perhaps, the right way to go for the Federal Government. And, th at’s 

where the impetus comes in the end.

Your comment, for instance, th at you say—I believe, this is a direct 

quo te: ‘‘ABAG has no power.” And, I find tha t very hard to live with. 

Because, its a little bit like saying that the Appropriation s Committee of the House has no power until the full House ratifies its 

decisions.

Th at’s true, in the strict sense, I suppose. But, it is whoever has the 

purse strings—and, ABAG has the purse strings in determining many 

of these grant requests that go out to cities. If, in fact, as Mayor Condon 

said, they are afraid of what they will lose—the cities are afraid of 

what they will lose, if they don’t go along with a particu lar plan. 

Obviously, the implied threat there: If you don’t go along with us on 

this p articula r plan, we will remove our approval from your project 

for sewage plant renewal, or whatever it may be. Now, that’s the source 

of the coercion, if it exists—the implied coercion, if it exists.

And, I ’d like to have some kind of comment, as you see it, about th at 

particu lar line of reasoning, or that rationale ?

Mr. Diridon. You’ve asked about six questions.

Mr. Ryan. All right.

Mr. Diridon. And, I ’d like to address them, if you’d give me the 

moment.

First of all, the adoption of the ABAG plan, the environmental 

management plan, is in no way a referendum on regional government. 

It was precisely relating to the environmental planning management 

process.

Mr. Ryan. Th at’s your conclusion. And, I would accept it as such.

Mr. Diridon. Well, I think it’s accurate, also.

Mr. Ryan. Well, that’s why they have elections.

Mr. Diridon. The process of government throu gh the region should 

be directly elected. And, I have supported tha t concept every time 

Jac k Knox has presented his numerous regional government bills.

ABAG, by the way, endorses directly elected regional government. 

And, we would like to see, and are intending, after the proposition 13 

situation settles down, to pursue again another of Jack’s many attempts 

at establishing a regional body, recognizing tha t if a directly elected 

regional government is established, it will have direct power, also.

Let me address now the issue of power of ABAG. Ev ery one of those
32

votes on the environmental management plan was a directed vote. As 

you heard from Mayor Condon, the vote of his city was directed. He 

had no choice when he came to th at general assembly meeting. He was 

told to vote in favor of the plan. Ju st as with all of the other 87 cities 

and 7 counties.

Out of th at direction process—and th at direction occurred during a 

public hearing a t a city council meeting, not before a general assembly 

hearing at AB AG—but, in tha t direction process, only five cities voted 

in opposition to the plan. For whatever reason—whether it was by the 

process of coercion, tha t you described; or, whether it was by the process of wanting to protect local con trol; which is really the reason.

Mr. Ryan. Supervisor, do you think th at the-----

Mr. Diridon. Out of the total general assembly, five cities voted in 

opposition.

Mr. Ryan. Do you think t hat the cities were well informed ?

Mr. Diridon. Yes. I think, very well informed. As a matter of fact, 

every city had at least one presentation. Every county board of supervisors had at least one presentation. And, most of them had numerous 

presentations. And, each one of the areas had public hearings-----

Mr. Ryan. So, you believe the city councils were well informed on 

this plan ?

Mr. Diridon. I think this-----

Mr. R yan. Would you thin k tha t there is any question, then ? Or, if 

there’s any effort on the part of the subcommittee to prepare a kind 

of “20-question” sort of questionnaire, which might be sent out to the 

various 84 members—84 cities in the bay area—84, or 86 ?

Mr. Diridon. There are 87—87 in ABAG.

Mr. Ryan. To the 87 cities, and ask the various city councils, individually—members—to answer the thing, to get some idea of the 

relative understanding of the elements of the plan ?

Mr. Diridon. I think, if you would compare their response on this 

plan with the ir response on a similar kind of piece of legislation, yes, 

it ’s a relative issue.

Mr. Ryan. I thin k that’s—I appreciate your comment. One of the 

dckibts tha t I had is tha t from my own experience, the 7 years on 

a city council here in the bay area, when Dave Martin was one of 

the veterans in the San Mateo County—Dave and I served at the same 

time for awhile on city councils—not on the same one, but at the same 

time—and, we used to discuss the problem of communication, and lack 

of inform ation on the pa rt of so many members of the city council; 

and being concerned about that. And I am now. And, because the San 

Francisco Bay area leads th e way and sets a precedent, I am terribly 

anxious that we have as accurate a kind of information as possible, 

about the quality of the information that’s been available.

Mr. Diridon. Would you care to hear a comment from Dave on this? 

Councilman.

Mr. Ryan. Dave ?

Mr. Martin. A couple of items. Your source of Mr. Condon’s info rmation that he’d better accept the plan was probably me. The implication, though, tha t you’re going from—and, I don’t thin k is quite what 

I had in mind. Now, whether I was the originator, or someone else 

tha t he talked to was the originator, I don’t know. It fits with my 

philosophy of government, so it’s not a new idea, as far as I am 

concerned.
33

The point here is not th at I am afraid of the legislation of the Congress. What I am a fraid of is two other things t ha t intervene between 

the Congress and the local government. And, that is, the bureaucrats 

in the Federal Government. And, what I am even more scared of are 

the bureaucrats in Sacramento.

If the plan was accepted—and, I am in full agreement with the 

Congress—we need clean air ; we need clean water. But, the Congress 

didn’t really say all the littl e bits of pieces th at go in the making up 

the regulation that’s this thick, tha t we have now. I was present for 

these hearings, as you well know. One of the points that I wanted to 

make at the hearings is, let Congress take another look and see if they 

really want their restrictions as strict as EP A has made them.

The reason I advised the cities to accept is t hat , under the act, if 

we did not present a reasonable plan, it was the power of the State 

agencies—and, I am particu larly concerned with the air resources 

board and Mr. Quinn—some of the things they could have forced on 

us, we could not have lived with.

Mr. Ryan. Just, for example?

Mr. Martin. Well, for example, land use.

Mr. Ryan. Could they still do it ?

Mr. Martin. Yes. Land use, I thin k, would be a horror. We would be 

forced to live with a land-use plan th at really only affects from 4 to 7 

percent of the possible removal of the hydrocarbons. And 24 times tha t 

is some 364. My figures may be a little vague. But, generally, in that 

range. This is overkill. And, yet I am as sure as I am sitting here, if 

the a ir resources board was able to, they would attem pt to impose those 

regulations on us. Hopefully, we can get something—if they do that— 

that will force th at plan back, and let us take another look at it. And, 

throw the burden of proof on any agency that says our plan is not 

viable. Rather than just throw it back and say: You figure it out. I 

want, them to come back with case by case as to why it isn't. Then, let 

us take a look at it.

I don’t like some of the th ings of ABAG. A nd, I ’ve been a member 

of th eir general assembly since 1962, with the exception of a couple of 

years, which is probably longer than anybody in this room. They do a 

lot of things wrong. But, i t’s still some place that I can work within 

the rules, and get my voice heard, and get my city heard.

In the case of this plan, the county was well organized, in the San 

Mateo County. From the December plan to the April plan, we proposed 

23 amendments to the plan. And, every one of these was accepted by 

the executive board.

So, cities do have some way to put into ABAG.

And, I thin k th e plan that we had in December, that your environmental management task force, and, I think, basically, ABAG’s staff, 

•wrote was a horror. The plan th at was accepted in June, I th ink, is a 

reasonable plan. I t’s still putting a g reat deal of imposition on cities 

and counties. But, -we can live with it. if we have to.

I thin k what we’re asking you is: Take another look, and, maybe, 

ease some of those restrictions. So tha t the economic hardships that 

they will work on this region are not so tha t we can’t exist under them.

Any questions ?

Mr. R yan. Yes. I ’ve got one in par tic ular: Are you, personally, comfortable with the present plan ?

Mr. Martin. We have to have a plan.
Mr. Ryan. Well, let me say it this way. We have to have a plan, 

why ?

Mr. Martin. Because, the Congress says we have to.

Mr. Ryan. If you had a choice, would you not have it ?

Mr. Martin. 1 would not have this plan, if I had a choice.

Mr. Ryan. What would you do ?

Mr. Martin. I think that we need to relax some of the requirements.

Mr. Ryan. Such as what ?

Mr. Martin. Such as some of the requirements on the automobile. 

The requirements tha t we meet certain hydrocarbon standards, and 

so on.

The problem here is that these are based on hypothetical points. 

They are based on a hypothetical population, for a hypothetical number of cars. Nobody knows tha t those are correct. I think tha t when 

we get throu gh with this plan, as it ’s w ritten, we are going to have 

very clear air. But, nobody may be working, is the problem. I think 

the economic benefits should be taken into consideration more than 

they have been.

Mr. R yan. If you had the capacity to write the Federal legislation, 

granted just the one fact that the Federal Government feels it necessary to get into the act of cleaning up air and the water in this country, how would you do it ?

Mr. Martin. I think—God forbid I should ever run for Congress—

Mr. Ryan. That’s giving you the idea before you-----

Mr. Martin. I think the legislation tends to go toward no risk. And, 

if I were in the Congress, I would tend to relax that no risk, no 

harm-----

Mr. Ryan. May I introduce a member of this subcommittee, who was 

busy in another courtroom hav ing his own hearing. He’s also a c hairman of a sulicommittee of Government Operations. T he one, the only, 

the inimitable—Congressman John Burton, from San Francisco. 

Thank you for being here.

Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, we’ve got 

our own hearing going down in another chamber.

Mr. Ryan. Let the record show th at for the purpose of takin g attendance tha t Mr. Burton is present.

Dave, go ahead. Unless you had some questions.

Mr. Martin. I am concerned about the failure of IIU D and the Departmen t of Transp ortation to get into the act, as EPA has. Because, 

I believe tha t what EP A does is, essentially, to penalize people for 

being where they are, and to try to force them to move elsewhere, or 

to move in a different direction by using pressures of various kinds, 

prim arily financial, thro ugh the cities to cause change.

Mr. Ryan. Th at’s correct.

Mr. Martin. There are other ways to do it. F or example, if the Department of Transportation were to take the same amount of money 

involved here, one-half of a billion dollars, and put i t into encouraging different kinds of transportation modes, different kinds of tax 

benefits. Fo r example, for construction of houses with HUD. Different 

kinds of policies which would encourage people—pull them back into 

San Francisco to live in different kinds of structures tha t are constructed so there’s a minimum amount of necessity for automobile 

travel—instead of, as they did a few years ago, trying to fine every-
35

body who pa rked in the parking lot in Serramonte or in Burlingame, 

you know.

The approach that EP A is using now, to me, is one which, essentially, is the punishment route, rather than the reward route. And I 

wonder if there isn’t—if you, or others, who have thought about this, 

as you have for years, don’t have some kind of suggestions th at might 

improve the situation.

1 don’t know any way to improve it. The way government works 

these days, I ’m about to give up. I sometimes thin k there is no solution.

Let me give you an example, Burlingame built the first partially 

tertiar y treatmen t pla nt on the bay some 10 years ago. Almost from 

the day that plant was completed, we were under sanction from the 

water quality control board because theoretically we had some solids 

going into the bay. And, then, beyond th at, we got into a discharge 

immediately off land, no deep water discharge.

The water w as clear enough so tha t when the plant was dedicated— 

I will admit we boosted up the chlorine content, slightly. But, Congressman McCloskey and 1 drank the water.

Mr. R yan. I remember the picture in the paper.

Mr. Martin. That’s right.

Mr. Kyan. There w ere all kinds of comments about that.

Mr. Martin. Th at’s right. Yes, there were. I thin k Mr. Diridon has 

some comments.

Mr. Diridon. I can tell you, I am not anxious to drink that water. 

That takes courage.

You asked two questions that are pivotal in the process regarding 

transportation and housing. I think that a very much more positive 

approach to solving some of the problems th at we are seeing here could 

be accomplished by Congress being more vigorous in reg ard to providing mass tran sportation fu nding an d assistance in housing.

And, if you can take th at back from me, not as president of ABAG, 

because I don’t have the authority to present that , but as the chairman 

of the board of supervisors, Santa Clara County, please do. And, with 

a fervent plea that you support additional fund ing for mass tra nsportation for California. We are in serious need. Particu larly, since 

proposition 13’s passage.

The planning process, though, that we’ve just been through is mandated. And, unless the law is changed, we are required to have that 

plan.

We have a plan, now, that, a lthough each of us would find indiv idual flaws with it, has met the test of political compromise to the 

point tha t it ’s been adopted. I t’s been adopted-----

Mr. Ryan. What if the State and /or the Federal reject that plan?

Mr. Diridon. Well, I hope that th at would be one of the outgrowths 

of th is hearing.

Mr. Kyan. Will i t be worse ?

Mr. Martin. Yes.

Mr. Diridon. It will be worse, if only because we don’t have control 

anymore at the local level.

Mr. Martin. Right.

Mr. Diridon. And, as a prio r local elected official, th at’s worse.

Air. R yan. T hat’s rig ht.

Mr. Diridon. If we can control it here, then someone can come to us ; 

walk around the com er; and come to my house in the evening, and say,
36

hey, I don’t like your plan, change your plan. But, if it ’s under State 

or Fede ral control, they are going to have to go to Washington to 

have that same kind of hearing. Unless, in a situation like this, you 

can have the hearings here, which is very rare.

Mr. R yan. Do you accept the proportion of the funds th at would be 

spent by local government, and the comments made earlier by the staff ?

Mr. Diridon. Well, let me refine them just a little bit, because I 

thin k they might have been misleading.

The principal amount of money th at’s going to be required on an 

annual basis for this plan is already committed. This is in the sanitation improvement element. And the local matching fund is guaranteed with the passage of proposition 2, in the election just a few days 

ago. And the matching Federal funds have already been budgeted in 

the main. There are a tew cases where the grants are still in the process 

of being pursued. But most of this is already in the process.

I thin k the calculation was 70 percent of the cost of this plan is 

either under construction, or in the process of being pursued by grants 

now. And it’s all in the sanitation treatment area, or water plant construction. And I am speaking now of San Pliillipe and the other peripheral canal kinds of construction projects that will be coming down 

the pike in the future.

Mr. Ryan. Why was there no reference, that I have seen so f ar—- 

and, if there is, please correct me—in all of this to the east bay municipal trea tment plant, w’hich is now burning its own sludge as a source of 

power ?

Mr. Diridon. This is one of the programs that Mayor Condon objects to. He feels tha t it’s not cost-efficient. Now, it does cost righ t now, 

because of the state of the technology, a little bit more than standa rd 

treatment of refuse disposal. But, I can tell you that in the future, as we 

lose our landfill sites—as those sites become more valuable for other 

purposes—that this is going to be a very viable alternative.

Incinerating solid waste, garbage; recovering metals, and so on, 

from the garbage is good business. And this is a p art of the EMP. And 

the mechanisms are set up for accomplishing tha t in a very gentle 

phase-in sort of way. I t isn’t forced. But, it’s a na tura l progression of 

the current plan.

Mr. Ryan. Who puts up the money ?

Mr. Diridon. The money would come, primarily, from the private 

sector. And, of course, tha t’s you and me in the ultimate of the cycle 

as we pay our refuse collection bill.

Mr. Ryan. I s there anything you have up there in Santa Clara 

County on that ?

Mr. Diridon. We are hoping to attract one of the three-phased 

P.G. & E. plants for the area. The p lant would take sludge and refuse; 

grind the refus e; and centrifuge out th e water and the m etals; take the 

cellulose and the plastics that result, and incinerate i t for power generation ; recycle the wa ter; and sell the metals.

We are one of three locations being considered now and would hope 

to be selected.

Mr. Ryan. Well, you’ve covered a great deal with that last comment. Because this subcommittee has—prepared, or not—looked into 

such th ings as the Baltimore experiment, which has cost Baltimore 

County $20 million. At which point, Honeywell got out. And th e Feds
37

came in with another $20 million, trying to make the pyrolysis technique work. It still doesn’t work.

On the other hand, this subcommittee has also gone to some cities in 

Europe and seen waste disposal plants that have been in operation for 

25 or 30 years t ha t operate very effectively and very efficiently.

And if I can give you and Santa Clara County a little advice, I 

would suggest that you not trea t any k ind of offer from P.G. & E. as 

simply a-----

A Voice. Monsanto.

Mr. Ryan. I’m sorry. It ’s Monsanto, not Honeywell, th at constructed 

the Baltimore plant. Thank you. Be sure and get the right plant there 

and not lose credibility.

Mr. Diridon. We would intend not to subsidize the plan t at all.

Mr. Ryan. Well, I ’d be very careful. I t isn’t ju st a ma tter of subsidy. 

I think you’d be a little embarrassed tearing it down if it d idn’t work, 

if it’s done wrong. The fact is th at that kind of a design is very experimental, when there are known technologies already tha t are well 

accepted. I th ink the problem here in this country is th at the taxpayers 

take it very unkindly when a member of the board of supervisors of 

Santa Clara County goes to Copenhagen and looks at their very modern 

waste disposal plant. You can go to New York, if you want, or you can 

go to Saugus, Mass., but you can’t go to Copenhagen.

Mr. Diridon. Not any more. Maybe I can go to Alviso.

Mr. Ryan. There’s one in Saugus you can look at, th at’s pretty good, 

too.

The time is up for this morning’s session. You will be back here, 

hopefully—if the waiters and the luncheon places are sufficiently 

alert—at 1 :15. We’ll reconvene the committee.

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene 

at 1:15 p.m., the same day.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. Ryan. The subcommittee will come to order.

I want to apologize to those who are present. But durin g the hearing 

we express an intent, not necessarily the fact—cabdrivers being what 

they are, and lacking change, and traffic, and so on.

Our first witness this afternoon for our hearing is Mr.-----

Mr. Hasseltine. Hasseltine.

Mr. Ryan. Mr. Hasseltine, who is a supervisor of Contra Costa 

County. Very good. Would you rise to be sworn in ? I t’s the practice of 

this committee and its subcommittees to swear in all witnesses.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. Ryan. Th ank you. If you will give your name for the record, 

Mr. Hasseltine.

STATEMENT OF ER IC HA SSELTIN E, SUP ERVIS OR, CONTRA COSTA 

COUNTY BOARD OF SUP ERV ISORS, CONTRA COSTA, CALIF .

Mr. Hasseltine. My name is Eric Hasseltine. I am a member of 

the board of supervisors of Contra Costa County.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear here today, Mr. 

Chairman. I do not have a written statement to submit at this time, 

since I was notified last evening of my opportunity.
38

Mr. Ryax. Yes.

Mr. Hasseltine. So I will be talking somewhat extemporaneously. 

But I would like to address my comments to three particu lar points.

The first is tha t this plan, which we’ve entered into as a cooperative agreement amongst the local governments and interested parties of the bay area. wras really designed to meet a set of specific objectives. And these objectives were taken as given—tha t is, the air quality standards, the rath er qualitative w ater standards, and so forth.

I think the first thin g tha t—from a Federal point of view—tha t 

needs to be done is to assure ourselves and to generate some reasonable 

degree of confidence tha t the standards are, in fact, ap propriate objectives for such a plan.

The idea of taking very specific quantita tive pollutant concentrations is in the a ir on the basis of a no risk philosophy—tha t is, that the 

most sensitive person in society, not on any occasion, be subjected to a 

level of pollutant which might possibly affect them—I thin k needs to 

bo examined.

The evidence which I have seen—and I ’ve read as much material as 

I can assimilate and get my hands on—indicates that the Federal standards are very, very conservative, which, I presume, was one of the reasons why they were just recently altered.

The, standard which we have the most difficulty with in attem pting 

to generate a plan to meet these objectives, is the oxidant standard. As 

you undoubtedly know, oxidants in the air consist primarily of ozone, 

and are produced throu gh a photochemical process through the combination of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides reacting in the presence 

of sunlight. The hydrocarbons and oxides and nitrogen are generated 

prim arily from exhaust of motor vehicles.

So tha t really leads into the second point that I ’d like to make. And 

tha t is tha t i t seems to me tha t if we are really serious about reaching 

air quality standards, whatever they may be in this country—and if 

we are really serious about clean air, then we ought to go to the source 

of the problem.

The 1982 mandated emission standards and emissions controls are 

available todav. The technology is in hand. To go beyond tha t is going 

to take, I think, a substantial amount of research and development.

Now. we don’t have a problem meeting the standards throughout the 

1980’s. We do have a problem into the 1990’s. Combustion technology, 

really, has a long way to go. if it is to participate in the meeting of 

those standards, and, therefore, in the attainment of clean air as 

defined by those standards.

We’ve never had to develop technology in terms of propulsion and 

combustion p rior to this time, in nearlv as rigorous a manner. We’ve 

always had a great surplus of fuel. We’ve never had a problem with 

dirtv air. And. now. we have both of those problems. The combustion 

engine, as it exists today, is probablv one of the most inefficient devices 

known to man. There is a great, deal tha t T believe can be done in 

developing clean engine technology and in developing alternative 

fuels.

The commitment, th at is necessary, in my opinion, is going to have 

to come from the Federal Government. In 1960. we decided tha t it was 

important, for this country to move into space. Th e p rimary objective 

was to put a man on the moon. We accomplished tha t in 8 years. It
39

would seem to me that startin g in 1978, or thereabout, looking ahead to 

the 1990’s and the year 2000, when we do not feel that we can any 

longer meet the standards as they now exist, t ha t with a sim ilar commitment on a national scale, sufficient research and development could 

be done in this area to meet those standards and to develop clean engines and alternative fuels.

The history of this country, in a technological sense, has always been 

that we have been able to meet, and, in fact, exceed technological objectives. And I thin k that the American scientific and engineering community is equipped and prepared to deal with that. What it s going 

to take is the necessary funding and the necessary priority assignment 

from the Federal Government.

The third point is th at there is a concern here of local government 

that th e planning process, which has always been a localized process in 

which we attem pt to plan for the needs of the people of our communities, our cities, and our counties in an intelligent, comprehensive way, 

is moving toward increased participa tion and increased control by 

regional, State, or Fede ral agencies.

My own feeling is tha t the environmental impact considerations need 

to be a component and a factor in any planning decision that we make, 

and a definite factor in the overall planning process.

But the process itself should not be so subverted tha t the environmental considerations become the prim ary goal of the entire process. 

In other words, the environmental considerations are one of the factors to be considered along with social and economic impact on what 

we are doing in our local development and as we progress toward 

future growth of our communities. It is not that the entire land use 

planning process is being conducted simply to meet certain environmental objectives.

The most controversial aspect tha t we got into in the development of 

this particular plan, of course, was whether or not land use controls 

were an appropriate ingredient of the plan.

Our conclusion was tha t they were not. One of the reasons why 

we felt they were not was that we figured tha t, philosophically, the 

control of development belonged at the local level. The second was 

that in development of our overall analytical tool—a very sophisticated, computerized, predictive model, which allowed us to make 

some fairly specific numerical projections as to the amount of pollutants to be found in the air in the future—indicated that by the 

year 2000 th at in terms of the total hydrocarbons emitted at tha t time 

would reduce the total by about 3 percent if all the land use controls 

suggested would be introduced. Out of the amount that we would 

have to reduce the total hydrocarbons to get back to meet the oxidant 

standards—again, within the accuracy of our calculations—it contributed only 5 percent of th at job th at needed to be done.

So, those controls were not accepted as part of the final plan, in 

my opinion, for two reasons:

One is that philosophically they are not appropriate. But, second, 

the best available predictive, analytical techniques indicated them 

to be largely ineffective in helping to meet tha t objective.

Now, many people have espoused such controls for various reasons. And, that’s fine. And, if land use controls, for some reason, are 

felt by the State or Fede ral agencies to be impo rtant, then I think
40

they ought to be addressed in an independent sense. And, they ought 

to be addresssed on whatever basis they are felt to be appropriate 

or necessary.

But, it ’s certainly not in meeting air quality standards. Because, 

as I say, according to the best tool yet known to me in terms of analytically predicting, the effect of such controls has shown tha t by the 

year 2000 they are not very effective at all.

I think overall the major point tha t I ’d like to make is tha t local 

governments in this area have responded very well to the mandates 

of the Federal and State governments in developing this plan and 

meeting the objectives that we’ve been asked to meet.

We ask th at the plan be accepted as it is, and not subverted to meet 

other purposes, or other goals and objectives. This is a plan tha t had 

very specific goals, certain objectives. We believe that they have been 

met.

In the event th at it can be shown by someone else that in some way 

the plan is inadequate or fails to meet those objectives, then we would 

like to have tha t demonstrated. And, we would also ask tha t ABAG 

have the first right to amend o r reconsider the plan. That is precisely the reason why a continuous planning process has been set up to 

address that possibility and that eventuality; that is, if further 

notifications should be needed. Or, if the uncertainty associated 

with our predictive approach are demonstrated to not meet the objectives, then we will have to undertake other measures and other 

alternatives.

So, we have a continuing planning process to evaluate which of 

those might be the most effective and the most desirable.

So, in summation—first of all, let me just say tha t I very much 

appreciate the opportunity to represent Contra Costa County here and 

to offer my opinions on the subject to you.

But, I see two things as being—well, really, all three of them—as 

being essential actions at the Federal level.

The first is th at we’ve got to insure ourselves, and raise our degree of 

confidence that the standards, as they currently exist, are both realistic 

and practical. I think it stands to reason that air pollution is such a 

difficult subject to treat analytically, tha t our measures of predicting 

do have uncertainties in them. And, the measures taken are difficult to 

assess.

The idea tha t at any one point in the bay area, on any one day. a 

certain level might be exceeded. To devise a plan to meet that kind of a 

goal, I am not sure, is really a practical goal taken into consideration 

with all the other concerns that we have in society today.

So, we need some confidence on the standards.

The second thing is, simply, that the necessary research and development to accomplish the technological advances necessary to develop 

clean engines a nd/or alternative fuels seems to me to be vital.

And, it would seem to me th at the amount of funding tha t the 

Federal Government would put into th at effort would have to be commensurate with, and compatible with, whatever prio rity we give the 

overall objective of clean air.

And, third , of course, we would like to see the local planning process 

remain under local control. And, we would like to maintain the ability 

to deal with tha t as we see fit w ithin our own jurisdictions.
That would conclude my remarks, then. Thank you, very much.

Mr. Ryan. Le t’s take that la st point first. Do you believe th at this 

plan allows you to determine for yourself what you want ?

Mr. H asseltine. Within-----

Mr. Ryan. Given the Federal statement th at we need to clean up our 

air and clean up our water, did the act that the Congress passed allow 

you the sufficient capacity to make that effort yourself 2

Mr. Hasseltine. Well, 1 believe so. We have some problems, at times, 

when we are restricted in the construction of local facilities by generalized population projections—zero population assumptions, fo r example—that, obviously, is not going to work in an area which is rap ­

idly growing. It is, obviously, very easy to meet in areas which have 

a declining growth.

I t’s one thing to talk on the average, in talking generalities. But, 

when you come down to specifics of planning in a local community, 

you are never going to find the average community. You are always 

somewhere off the average. And, therefore, your problem either becomes more difficult or more easy, depending on what problem you 

have at hand.

Air. Ryan. Are you comfortable with this plan ?

Air. Hasseltine. I am comfortable with it-----

Air. Ryan. Is your board ?

Air. Hasseltine. Yes. Because, I recognize the effort that was made. 

It was a cooperative effort. There were things suggested that I found, 

personally, objectionable; that my board found objectionable. Alost 

of those have been removed. 1 think tha t the philosophy of how a ppealing it is have to be tra ded off for how effective it is. I f some of 

the more objectionable components had been shown to be highly effective in achieving the overafl goals, I thin k that, you know, we could 

have backed off on that. And, it probably would have influenced our 

thinking a great deal.

But, what we found was tha t the most objectionable were, in fact, 

not particularly effective in meeting the objectives of the plan. And, 

so, the philosophical arguments prevailed.

Air. Ryan. Air. Cunningham ?

Air. Cunningham. If you weren’t under a Federal mandate to comply with some of these areas, would you have this same plan ?

Air. Hasseltine. We would have this same plan in several of the 

areas, Air. Cunningham.

Fi rst of all, the solid w’aste management plan was exactly the plan 

tha t our county had adopted, and then our section of it goes into th at.

Our water supply, we’ve been very concerned with. And, in fact, I 

think our county has gone beyond what actually is within the plan 

itself.

Water quality is something tha t we are certainly concerned with. 

And, we've complied with the Water Pollution Control Act already. 

We have new treatment facilities, and so forth, already going ahead in 

our county.

If you are asking me whether or not the voters of our county would 

have approved those bond issues had it not been mandated to provide 

secondary treatment, I would have to tell you tha t they probably would 

not have. I t was hard enough to get them to vote, even though we wrere mandated to do it.
42

In terms of tlie air quality, it’s difficult to tell. Because, it’s very difficult for a local agency to tell how you fit into the overall problem.

One real benefit of this analysis was to be able to identify, I think, 

the potential value of various approaches to helping to alleviate the air 

quality problem—improve the air quality, alleviate the air pollution 

problem.

Many times in considering development requests and growth patterns, you hear from people: Well, we already have an air pollution 

problem here, you should not compound i t by doing t hi s; or, this will 

lead to this deterioration of a ir ; or whatever.

There’s no way to assess, really, what, in your own small area, you 

are going to contribute to the overall problem. An awful lot of air 

pollution, probably, generated by automobiles in our county, does 

not appear as pollution—or does not appear in a deterioration of 

standards right in that local area, if anywhere.

So, I think, the exercise was very good for us in being able to 

identify the sources of air pollution for the region. And, how various 

control measures might impact on an overall a ir quality effort.

Some of the measures proposed never would have been adopted by 

us. But, of course, they were dropped out of the plan, too—as I said, 

the most objectionable ones. The ones tha t were finally adopted, 1 

thin k were satisfactory to us, and seemed to be reasonable things to 

do in ligh t of the fact tha t there is a problem. Whether or not we 

would have assessed them to have been essential, or important, in 

doing our share to meet tha t overall objective, I can’t tell you.

Mr. Cunningham. There have been two things suggested. One is 

tha t this is simply another layer of government. And, two, that it is 

the potential of eroding local control for local solutions. Would you 

address yourself to those?

Mr. Hasseltine. I thin k th at ’s been a fear, and something tha t 

people have been concerned about. I think, as it currently exists, that 

is not really the case.

I find a grea t distinction between regional cooperation on problems 

of a regional nature and what you would call regional government, 

which I would call another layer of government.

Thus far, the local governments in the bay area have resisted the 

formation of what I would term regional government. We have agreed 

to cooperate and work together on problems t ha t are beyond just the 

local scope. We’ve agreed to work together to complement each other’s 

activities in learning more and understanding the nature of the problem, as well as the value of various approaches to meeting tha t 

problem.

Where we are now with this particu lar environmental management plan, I do not believe that it can be said that it introduces 

another layer of government.

Mr. Cunningham. This morning we’ve heard testimony from the 

president of the area supporting the regional government. Do you see 

a potential confrontation down the road ?

Mr. Hasseltine. Between himself and me on that point?

Mr. Cunningham. Well, I don’t like to put it between individuals. 

But, say, between the executive board of ABAC and the various local 

municipalities, be they county or city?

Mr. Hasseltine. There are regional advocates on the executive
43

board. My guess would be tha t the majority of local elected officials 

in this bay area are not interested in the regional form of government. Certainly, I am not.

Mr. Cunningham. Tha nk you.

Mr. Ryan. Should Congress proh ibit land use controls? Should 

we add that to the act?

Mr. Hasseltine. I am not sure I understand the question. It was 

my-----

Mr. Ryan. Well, the really big objection raised was over the section 

tha t had to do with land use controls, which has since been amended 

out.

Mr. H asseltine. Th at was, certainly, the most controversial.

Mr. Ryan. Yes.

Mr. Hasseltine. Well, I would prefer to say that it wasn’t amended 

out. Mr. Chairm an, I would prefer to say that it was something tha t 

was considered and never entered into the plan.

Mr. Ryan. Never put in ? All right.

Mr. Hasseltine. Right.

Mr. R yan. Whichever way you go. Should Congress prohibit tha t ?

Mr. Hasseltine. Prohibit not having-----

Mr. R yan. Specifically, explicit in the bay area, should it proh ibit 

it in the Sacramento plan, or the southern California plan ?

Mr. H asseltine. I thin k so. I think tha t our experience has demonstrated that it’s not effective. And, I believe tha t—again, I philosophically feel th at it is not the way to go, to have the S tate or Fed eral 

Government enter into land use controls.

It was my understanding th at Congress in adopting the Clean Air 

Act, and subsequent amendments, in fact, has specifically ruled tha t 

EP A did not have th e power or auth ority to introduce indirect source 

controls. And, I agree with that 100 percent.

Mr. Ryan. Wh at about control at the local level ? Do you believe you 

maintain th at now ?

Mr. Hasseltine. Yes. Within—anything we do, of course, is only 

what we are authorized to do by the State of California and the 

U.S. Government.

Mr. Ryan. Yes. I understand that. But, do you thin k th at you maintain that control with this plan ?

Mr. Hasseltine. I think so, yes.

Mr. Ryan. Do you think that’s shared by other county boards of 

supervisors ?

Mr. Hasseltine. I am sure tha t it is shared by some other boards 

of supervisors, yes. I could not say tha t it’s unanimous. But, I believe 

tha t it is. I ’m not concerned with any erosion of control as rep ­

resented by the plan which we curre ntly have voluntarily entered 

into.

And, let me say that, if my board had felt that there was any serious 

erosion of control I am sure they would have objected to it.

Mr. Ryan. Yes.

Mr. Hasseltine. And, the fact tha t all nine counties of the bay 

area, who are members of ABAG, all voted in favor of the plan, would 

indicate to me that they are not concerned with any real erosion 

control.

Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Chairman, you might be interested in know-
44

ing tha t right now in the Senate, there is legislation pending, sponsored by a senior Senator from the State of Washington, Magnuson, 

to authorize funds for local governments to buy up the development 

rights. It gets into land-use planning. You should be aware tha t tha t 

snake is alive.

Mr. Hasseltine. Yes. Well, Mr. Cunningham, that would be the 

same as any other Federal grant, or Federal program, into which local 

government enters, in tha t we would have to look at the conditions 

under which such funds would be accepted, to see whether or not that 

would be something that would be appealing to us.

The acquisition of development rights can, obviously, be used to 

the benefit of local communities in some cases. There are certain areas 

tha t, at times, we would very much like to protect, to preserve, for 

some reason. But, which—under normal practice, and normal approach 

to land-use planning, in which we usually try to do what is equitable 

and what is reasonable. And, therefore, allowing one person to do 

what others have done in a consistent way. I t’s very difficult sometimes 

to preserve something of some value to the community for another 

purpose. Particularly, if the local people will not ban together collectively to purchase it themselves.

The acquisition of development rights, scenic easements, open space 

easements, and so forth , I thin k is a very appealing tool, if used 

properly. The problem has always been the acquisition of funds.

Mr. Cunningham. And the determination of what’s proper for you, 

or mine.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you, very much, Mr. Hasseltine. We appreciate 

your appearance.

We have Mayor Ilene Weinreb, I believe, on behalf of the National 

League of Cities. I t’s very impressive. Would you give your name?

Ms. Weinreb. I am Ilene Weinreb. I am the mayor of Hayward. 

I am a member of the National League of Cities, Committee on E nvironmental Quality. I am the former chairman of tha t committee.

Mr. R yan. You follow in the footsteps of a very dear frie nd of mine 

in the State legislature. He was a t one time mayor of Hayward.

Ms. Weinreb. Carlos Bee?

Mr. R yan. Carlos Bee.

Ms. Weinreb. Yes.

Air. Ryan. Rest his soul. He was certainly a very effective spokesman 

for your area.

Ms. Weinreb. Yes, he was.

Mr. Ryan. We are glad to have you here. And if you can summarize, in any way, your statement, we’ll have more time for questions.

Ms. Weinreb. OK. It will be considerably less tha n 10 minutes.

Air. Ryan. Fine. Thank you.

[Witness sworn.]

STATEMENT OF IL ENE WEINR EB, MAYOR, HAYWARD, CALIF.

AIs. AVeinreb. I come before the committee today wearing two ha ts; 

tha t of the mayor of H ayward, and an active participant in development of the area’s environmental management plan; and as the spokesperson for the National League of Cities, the Nation’s largest organization representing some 15,000 cities and towns across the country.
As a member of th e league’s Committee on Environmental Quality, 

the group responsible for developing national municipal policy on environmental issues, I have been asked to deliver our current views on local government experiences with water quality management efforts required under section 208, of the Federal water pollution control program. I have had very little contact with the national league office about the development of the bay area’s environmental management, or “208” plan, that I ’ll refer to in the future as the EMP. Therefore, when I read the national league’s comments on experience throughou t the country, I was astonished to find how close those ex­ periences were to ours here in the bay area. If I didn’t know better, I would have thought NEC ’s testimony was written specifically with 

the bay area experience in mind. Therefore, all I shall add, at the end, is some comment about the three major areas of controversy here in the bay area. For the NLC, 

I shall address the following points: Fir st, achievements of the 208 program to da te; and, second, prospects for implementing initial plans. The areawide waste treatment concept called for in the 1972 act •was a significant step toward rationalizing metropolitan efforts in 

water pollution control. Unfortunately, the impoundment of authorized funds and the com­ plexity and ambiguity of Federal and State regulations and admin­ istration resulted in a faulty and somewhat checkered startup of the 

208 program. In most areas of the country, individual facility planning and con­ struction under the 201 program was underway p rior to metropolitan planning, which, for the most part, went into full swing in 1975. We are now at the end of the initial planning phase of 208. Nearly 200 metropolitan areas are approaching completion of their initial 

208 plans. It is the league’s view that the 208 program and process has fulfilled its major objectives by curbing the inherent deficiencies in the con­ struction gran ts program, and rationalizing water quality management in complex urban areas. NLC believes tha t the limited investment in 208, thus far, has already paid for itself in discouraging unnecessary and overdesigned 

treatment facilities. In a random sample conducted last month, the National Association of Regional Councils documents savings to local, State, and Federal 

governments in excess of $150 million. In its initial phase, 208 has successfully demonstrated tha t continu­ ing planning and consideration of alternative solutions fo r water pol­ lution control is the key to cost effectiveness in water pollution 

abatement. Beyond the appealing cost savings in capital outlays for waste tre at­ ment facilities, the 208 program has brought about significant changes in policies and programs related to water pollution control. Communities are taking steps to protect critical water resources, and are evaluating their land-use policies for their impact on water 

quality and futu re w7aste water service needs. They are enacting regulatory programs to control onsite disposal 

35—395— 78----- 1
46

systems and alleviate the need for more sophisticated and costly 

treatment.

In short, the 208 program, beyond producing a locally accepted and 

cost effective regional facility plan, has dramatically increased local 

sophistication and understanding of pollution and control.

A glance at completed 208 plans, from across the country, proves the 

fact t hat the m etropolitan waste treatment solutions vary widely, and 

tha t the need for good regional planning and local solutions, rather 

than uniform strategies is real.

There has been some criticism of initial 208 plans for their lack of 

dramatic institutional solutions to regional water quality programs. 

The league strongly disagrees with this line of criticism. It is the 

league’s hope th at the intent of Congress was not to mandate Federal 

prescriptions for the nature and form of local government.

The thrust of areawide programs, thus far, has been to create regional mechanisms utilizing existing institutions. Management and 

implementation responsibilities have been assigned, for the most part, 

to general purpose local government, creating the least amount of disruption to existing agencies. In our view, this is not a negative result, 

it is a politically accurate judgment that will insure support and implementation of the plans.

This leads me to the area of much interest to this committee, the 

ability to implement plans prepared under section 208. As we have indicated, local and regional agencies already have taken many positive 

steps as a result of 208 planning. In terms of formal implementation' 

of measures identified in initial plans, however, the jury remains out.

At present, initial area wide plans are either in process of local approval or S tate certification. Very few plans have been certified by the 

States and approved by EPA.

In many regions, communities are having difficulty assessing their 

precise implementation responsibilities. There is general concern on 

the pa rt of local governments about the State certification process.

Obtaining local approval of areawide plans has not been an easy 

task, either politically or technically. States, which for the most pa rt 

have yet to complete their statewide plans, are not indicating a responsiveness to regional plans, and local officials are concerned tha t 

States will disrupt carefully wrought compromises reached in the 

region.

There is furthe r uneasiness because of recent amendments to the 

Clean Wa ter Act, as well as proposals by the E PA to fu rther delegate 

responsibilities for the water quality management program to the 

States. Cities are concerned that these new initiatives may encourage 

States to significantly tamp er with area wide plans. If this occurs, the 

implementation of area wide plans will be seriously jeopardized.

Ability to pay remains one of the critical implementation issues of 

local concern—obviously so in California, in the face of increasing 

limitations on local spending. Wate r cleanup measures will be forced 

to compete with other services which have large and articulate constituencies.

I am happy to report that here in California, at least on a statewide level, even in the face of public resistance to existing taxes, the 

State water finance measure to build wastewater facilities narrowly 

passed on the June ballot. Probably, it passed because people per-
47

■reived, quite correctly, that if it failed, the ir local costs would have to 

increase. In contrast to the construction gran ts program, which is largely supported by State and Federal funds, nonpoint source cleanup is presently predicated on local support. Furthermore, the cost of con­ trolling nonpoint sources was grossly underestimated by th e drafters of the water quality legislation. The unexpected high local cost re­ sulted in limited recommendations in the initial 208 plans. Furthermore, although 208 dramatically increased public and gov­ ernment attention to the water quality impact of nonpoint sources, the research was not always able to demonstrate significant need. And, hence, th e drafters of the 208 plans were unable to generate a constituency for the program. The continuing planning process will have to address these and other elements, such as advanced waste treatment, and demonstrate tha t more than marginal benefit to water quality will be obtained, if 

additional local funds are to be forthcoming. EP A has recently released a 5-year funding and management stra t­ egy for State and areawide water quality management programs. The EP A strategy correctly recognizes many of the financial and technical problems associated with 208 plans; and outlines concrete steps to improve the continuing planning process, and clarify EP A’s imple­ mentation expectations. The EP A strategy is important, because it demonstrates the commitment of the Agency for continuing Federal support for State and local planning and implementation. However, even as we talk today of plans moving to implementation, there is a real doubt that Congress will appropriate adequate funds to do the job. As area wide agencies run out of money, States do not appear ready to replace water quality management funds for regional and local agencies. Without such funds for the continuing planning process, the momentum for implementation will be lost. The league is convinced that the areawide wastewater treatment concept envisioned by the Congress is sound, and th at the initial 2-year planning programs have been extremely successful. The key to the future and success of water quality management pr o­ grams will be the continued reliance of bottoms-up planning to meet water quality standards. In such plans lie the answers to the implementation of section 208. Now, to comments specific to the bay area’s situation. Our environ­ mental management plan. EMP, combines planning fo r water supply, water quality, air quality, and solid waste disposal. EP A and the State encouraged ABAC, as they did COG’s in some other regions, to combine these elements. All of these elements are so obviously interre­ lated that our water quality plan would not be nearly as good without 

this kind of integrated planning. First, let me say that ABAG ’s EMP fulfills legislative intent, as it meets all Federal and State standards. In the plan, itself, there were three major areas of controversy. They were : Land-use controls, trans­ portation controls, and best available control technology—sometimes called BACT—versus reasonably available control technology. FACT. The first two items, land-use controls and transportation controls, in the original staff draft would promote the so-called “compact growth” strategy. It should be noted that strategies considered and
48

discarded in the final plan—in both the land use and transporta tion 

areas—will be reexamined in futu re updates, when “fine-tuning” will 

take place.

The task force and general assembly made a political judgment not 

to include regional land-use controls in the initia l plan, because they 

felt such controls could significantly change social and economic conditions in the bay area. And, as the supervisor just said, at not a 

very great cost effectiveness.

A number of transporta tion controls were included, but, some significant ones were not because the metropolitan transportation commission, or MTC, the body responsible for developing the trans portation strategies, felt the cost of the additional measures was unacceptably high. Even those trans portation controls remaining in the plan 

will require significant State and Federal funding.

What was left in was MTC’s political judgment as to those measures 

that would involve acceptable local increases in cost, plus their best 

guestimates about State and Federal support. MTC recently went 

through a major controversy when it raised bridge tolls fairly modestly. A fte r th at experience, I believe MTC can judge, as well as any 

group, and better than most, the additional cost the public will 

tolerate.

The argument over BACT versus RACT was in large p art due to a 

misunderstanding about definitions. T hat misunderstanding has now 

been cleared up. What has been accepted by bay area industries and 

what is in an EM P is th e commitment to provide any pollution abatement equipment and technique tha t is available commercially and at 

the appropriate scale.

One prominent spokesperson for the industrial community has told 

me that he believes the controls on industry in the E MP preclude most 

new large-scale basic industries from locating in the bay area. He is 

willing to accept this situation, as he believes th at the EM P at least 

allows modernizing and small additions to presently existing bay area 

industries.

I was part of the environmental management task force which felt— 

and of the ABAG general assembly, which also felt—tha t the maximum control strategies tha t would receive public acceptance, were included in the EMP.

The plan does meet Federal and State standards. And it does represent a genuine political compromise between environmentalists and 

those who fear thwa rting of economic growth.

We who supported the EMP are worried about three t hing s:

One, th at either the State or EP A will tamp er with our carefully 

reached consensus.

Two, th at the State will not implement an auto emission inspection 

program comparable to New Jersey, and, hence, stringent enough to 

meet the EM P standards. And, I respectfully request tha t you Congressmen, who are from the State of California, aid us in convincing 

our State legislators of the need for a good auto emission inspection 

program.

And three, tha t EP A will not equitably administer the Clean A ir 

and Clean Water Acts, which would mean that,the bay area would be 

placed at a competitive disadvantage with the other metropolitan 

regions.
49

If these three fears are not borne out, we feel the 208 process in the 

bay area will be a resounding success.

Air. Ryan. With those reservations, I think, th at’s very optimistic.

In regard to your last comment, I might be more prone to take up 

your suggestion about talk ing to State legislators were I not aware of 

proposition 9. H avin g been a State legislator for 10 years, I am worried about that.

I think that statement th at you’ve just made, Madam Mayor, is certainly an extremely important one. And, I think, very significant, very 

comprehensive. And you are to be commended for the succinct quality 

of what you say.

There’s only a couple of questions that I have. On th at last page you 

plucked a very sensitive string. And I quote: “He believes the controls 

on industry in the EAIP preclude most new, large-scale, basic industries 

from locating in the bay area.”

Ms. Weinreb. And, I would say, th at fo r the industrial community 

to accept tha t is going quite a ways to improve the environment. I t’s 

quite an acceptance.

Mr. Ryan. So you believe that tha t’s true ?

Ms. Weinreb. Th at the EM P will—yes, I do. I feel tha t it is so 

stringent in the controls on stationary sources-----

Mr. Ryan. The present EM P adopted by ABAG, did your city 

council vote for it ?

Ms. Weinreb. Yes, we did. As did the mayor’s conference in Ala ­

meda Coimty.

Mr. Ryan. Did you suppo rt it?

Ms. Weinreb. Yes, 1 did.

Air. Ryan. In spite of what you said there ?

AIs. Weinreb. In spite of it. You know, we have to meet the Federal 

and State requirements. And, I don’t see any other way.

Air. Ryan. Well, there are things th at are more important than meeting Federal and State requirements—which is to stay alive.

I think it is important for us to do everything we can, reasonably, to 

improve the quality of life any place, and any time we can. But, i f you 

tal k about balancing a Dow chemical plan t—one-half a billion dollars 

worth of indu stria l investment, and tens of thousands of jobs in an 

area where the unemployment has been a consistent and chronic problem, especially in your area, rig ht in Hayward-----

AIs. Weinreb. Th at’s right. Absolutely. Higher than the regional 

average.

Air. Ryan. Precisely, is higher than the national average.

AIs. AVeinreb. T ha t’s right.

Air. R yan. I f you are willing to sav that that many people must be 

condemned to unemployment, to a kind of sagging economic condition, in order to improve the quality to the point of no risk—I am giving you the argument now of those who are flatly opposed-----

AIs. AVeinreb. Yes.

Air. Ryan. And, no risk meaning, if there is one person who has a 

cough because of severe allergies from b irth, the existence of tha t one 

person must be considered before the jobs of others, who also need to 

live.

I guess what I am saying is th at we are struggling to find some kind 

of balance. How many people are there in the no-risk category, whom
50

we suggest very gently, hopefully, tha t they move to a different kind of 

climate-—in Susanville, perhaps, high and dry, and warm * Instead of 

impacting all those jobs, and all those people’s lives, all those children 

whose parents cannot live decently. Where do we draw the line ?

Ms. Weinreb. Well, you’ve touched something tha t I feel very

strongly about. We, in Hayward, have worked very hard -----

Mr. Ryan. People in Hay ward work for a living ?

Ms. Weinreb. They not only work for a living, we’ve worked very 

hard to increase the growth in our industrial area. And, we’ve been 

very successful a t it. And, we work very closely with our industrial 

community.

And, for me to have to accept this is not a happy kind of thing. But, 

if tha t is what the State and Federal standards are, then we have-----

Mr. Ryan. Are they ?

Ms. Weinreb. Yes, indeed.

Mr. Ryan. Should they be ?

Ms. Weinreb. Well, what we have asked is t hat the Fede ral Government authorize and finance some further studies of the standards 

to see if they are truly health based.

Mr. R yan. Yes. But, basically, Madam Mayor, what it comes down 

to is, who writes the rules.

And, we’re from the Congress, and we write the rules, ultimately, I 

suppose. Or, have the ultimate au thority. But, there are serious doubts 

about our capacity to do so. I express them now for myself, and for 

others, too. Do we do them as well as you do ?

Ms. Weinreb. Well, I think we can in the local area—once you have 

set standards—come up with the best ways to meet those standards.

Mr. Ryan. Well, all right. We are a little circular there, I think. 

I appreciate your capacity, your apparen t willingness to accept F ederal mandate. But-----

Ms. Weinreb. It is the indu strial community t ha t is willing to accept the EM P as the major spokespeople have told AB AG. And, I 

thin k it is, you know, a major concession on their pa rt.

Mr. R yan. Well, we’ll hear from them, too. But, you are th e mayor 

of Hayward. Some time back, Carlos Bee was the mayor of H ayward. 

About the same time, I was the mayor of South San Francisco. And, 

when I was mayor of South San Francisco and he was mayor of Hay ­

ward, we were concerned about our own people. And, I was convinced 

then, and I am still convinced now—and I knew more then and the way 

they thought, than I do now in Congress. And, I depend on you, and 

others like you, to be respectful, I suppose, of Federal authority—that's 

always nice—but, to provide resistance where you think your own people are not helped.

Ms. Weinreb. All right. Let me say that, in this respect, Hayw ard 

will not be seriously hurt. Because, we do not have the large tracts of 

land th at a Dow chemical-----

Mr. Ryan. But, will it be hurt ?

Ms. Weinreb. I t’s hard to know, exactly. I think—frankly, I think 

other things that I am working on will help us more. I ’ve been working 

with some of the-----

Mr. Ryan. Granted the need to improve the quality of the environment at all times, including pollution, and water, and air. But, we need 

to assess the damage incurred, and to rate it against the value received 

in improved quality.
51

Ms. Weinreb. All right. I guess, I have to say tha t if these standards 

are truly health based—and, I do not mean to the extent that if one person, who has extremely sensitive lungs is hurt, that the standard should 

be based I don’t mean that. But, I do mean, if they are based on what 

is healthy for young children.

Mr. Ryan. In general ?

Ms. Weinreb. Yes, in general. That—yes, I do accept the fact that 

if some limit on some industrial growth is needed—you know, from the 

point of view of the health of the community—tha t’s the price we liai e

to pay. . .

Mr. R yan. Let me ask vou another thin g, just very quickly. Do you 

believe that the Federal* support of 208 planning ought to be continued ?

Ms. Weinreb. I hope it will be continued.

Mr. Ryan. What if it is not ? . . .

Ms. Weinreb. I do not know, particu larly, in California, at this 

point, where we would get the resources to continue it. And that- it 

really would be sad. Because, we have built a voluntary, cooperative 

effort with segments of the bay area community that was not here 

before. And, I would hate to lose tha t momentum.

Mr. Ryan. Do you favor the continuation of State and Federal support for the implementation of 208 plans ?

Ms. Weinreb. Yes, I do, very strongly.

Mr. Ryan. What if they don’t ?

Ms. "Weinreb. I don’t know if we could continue it. We would certainly try.

Mr. Ryan. What about if the Congress is infected by, or reacts to, 

proposition 13, and cuts off the money ?

Ms. Weinreb. We would try—-—

Mr. Ryan. The Jarvis-Brown initiative-----

Ms. Weinreb. Jarvis-Brown. [Laughter.]

Mr. R yan. Th at’s Mr. Cunningham’s reference, not mine.

Ms. "Weinreb. All I can say is—because I feel tha t we all—all the 

cities impact on each other and the best planning when you are talking 

about water quality and a ir quality, is th at planning which is regional. 

If the planning is done jointly, I would do my best to provide our 

share of the cost. Th at’s all I can tell you. Because, I think it ’s terribly 

important.

Mr. Ryan. Do you feel t hat you were under pressure to approve?

Ms. Weinreb. Only in the sense tha t—as I understand the Federal 

act—there does have to be a plan. And, if we did not, then either the 

State, or E PA , would, of necessity, have to come up with a plan. And, 

I am much more comfortable with what we did than with something 

that they might do.

Mr. Ryan. I s it fai r to say, then, that you felt a kind of Federal 

pressure to approve this plan ?

Ms. Weinreb. I would—tha t would be fair.

Mr. Ryan. OK. Th ank you, very much. Ms. Weinreb, you’ve been an 

extremely excellent witness in the trad itio n of great mayors of Ha yward.

Ms. Weinreb. Oh, thank you.

I wonder if I mig ht answer some o f th e questions th at were asked 

of the supervisor? Because, I did have, I think, a little more detail.
52

Mr. R yan. Please do, yes.

Ms. Weinreb. One of the questions asked was: What does this 208 

planning do tha t would not have been done before { 1 don’t remember 

which one of you asked that question.

With out the 208 legislation, 1 do not feel that we would be pushing 

an auto emission inspection plan. And I do know that that will be 

very significant in reducing the tonnage of hydrocarbon.

And I do not believe we would have examined, in detail—and we 

have in Alameda County—a streetsweeping program. And we hope 

to implement it on an experimental basis, to see what better streetsweeping will do to reduce the pollution of our streams.

And so we are takin g a more serious, much more serious, look at 

these things.

And you asked—someone asked—should Congress prohibit landuse controls as an acceptable strategy ? I don’t believe Congress should. 

Because, even though we eliminated them from the EM P and I did 

not feel t hat they should be in this plan, I don’t know th at that would 

be true of every region. And so I feel tha t Congress should really allow 

the maximum flexibility for a region to come up with its own solutions.

Mr. Ryan. Very good.

Ms. Weinreb. A nd then you asked about another layer of government. Is this another layer of government ? Is this increasing regional 

government ? And my answer is : We have a multitude, now, of regional 

governments. And this-----

Mr. Ryan. Yes. This would consolidate them.

Ms. Weinreb. And I personally would like to see them consolidated. 

But I think I am a minority view in tha t respect.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you very much.

Ms. Weinreb. You’re very welcome. Thank you for the opportunity.

Mr. R yan. Madam Mayor, you are a very excellent witness.

Ms. Weinreb. Thank you.

Mr. Ryan. The next witness will be Alameda County Supervisor 

Fre d Cooper.

Mr. Cooper. Do you want me to proceed ?

Mr. Ryan. Please, sir.

[Witness sworn.]

STA TEMENT OF FR ED F. COOPER, SUP ERVIS OR, ALAMED A COUNTY 

BOARD OF SUP ERV ISO RS, ALAMEDA COUNTY, P A T, TP

Mr. Cooper. I am Fred Cooper, county supervisor, from Alameda 

County. The district I represent consists of the middle-class city of 

Alameda and the flatlands of E ast Oakland, which are predominantly 

minority and working class.

And it is in East Oakland th at we have groups with unemployment 

rates of 20 to 40 percent, particu larly young people who are members 

of various minorities.

aP " Tha t s Robert Crown country, the late Robert Crown.

Mr. Cooper. Yes. Right. I first, ran when he was in the assembly 

and our districts were largely coterminous.

The people in East Oakland, which has clean air, are naturally con-
53

cemed much more about jobs than they are about cleaning up the air 

in Livermore and San Jose. And, I thin k one of the things Congress 

needs to look at, particularly, since the President recently came out 

with his urban strategy, is the conflict between jobs and the environment, and the impact of some of the rules on polluting the environment of urban core cities with unemployment in order to concern ourselves with pollution in other parts of the area.

One of our concerns, naturally, has to be Federal mandates, such as 

the Clean Air Act, which impose m ajor costs on local government, in 

the wake of Jarvis-Gann. And, I am sure that’s a subject you’ve already considered. We have been fighting unfunded mandates on local 

government in California. And, I, in particular, have been fighting 

mandates from the State legislature for the past 5 years t ha t haven’t 

been funded. And, to the extent we get them from the Federal Government, in the wake of proposition 13, it’s impossible for us to meet them 

without seriously jeopardizing governmental services.

We are concerned with the standards. One of the concerns is background hydrocarbons. I sent Congressman Ryan a copy of an article 

of May 31, from the San Francisco Chronicle, which indicates that 

there seems to be a correlation between rainfa ll and smog. And, tha t 

winters with heavy rainfall result in more vegetation, and seem to 

result in more smog. And, I think, there was a study of Lake Tahoe 

which indicated tha t any area with large pine forests, as tha t has, can 

never reach the Federa l standards, because of the hydrocarbons from 

the vegetation.

I thin k it’s important, unless we make major changes in the standards, to tie tha t down and determine just what natural background 

hydrocarbons are, and adjust the standards to fit actual reality.

Another of my concerns has been tha t we appear to be setting the 

standards—oh, I would first like to say, EP A recently adjusted the 

standards, and I think th at’s a step in the direction of reality. And, it’s 

also a step in recognition of the fact th at the standards are not really 

perfect, or cannot really be objectively established. But, to have 1 hour 

a year, or 1 day a year, as a minimum, is just totally unrealistic at 

least, if the background of the hydrocarbon problem is a real one. And, 

it seems to be.

Second, it seems to me that in the bay area, fo r example, we may be 

substantially affecting and worsening the lives of 99.9 percent of our 

population, in order to protect, perhaps, one-tenth of 1 percent or 

one-hundredth of 1 percent of the population. And, in a time of physical limits, we ought to consider, at least, studying the possibility of 

determining who the one-tenth or one-hundredth of 1 percent are, and 

providing them with homes and cars that have air-conditioning, 

rather than us spending hundreds of billions of dollars to inconvenience and jeopardize the jobs, and the basic governmental structure 

for everyone else. I don’t know whether that would work. It seems to 

me, though, t ha t if we have physical constraints, we ought to, a t least, 

explore that. And, I don’t know if those people can be identified. Bu t, 

it seems to me tha t somebody must have identified them to set any 

kind of standards.

And, I am not advocating we do that. I am advocating that we explore that. And, tha t EP A be asked to look at that and what are the 

pros and cons of that kind of approach. Special protection for the
peo ple th at need it, ra th er th an c hang ing the w hole economy, an d the 

whole stru ctur e of go ver nm ent for wha t app ears, at least , to be a fai rly 

sma ll group .

Ano th er of our concerns with the sta nd ar ds is lowest achieva ble 

emission rate (L A E R ), which t ends t o ign ore the economics. An d, if 

you look a t our bala nce of pay me nts, and our unem plo ym ent rat es in 

the core citie s, we hav e to ask th e quest ion : How many jobs can we 

con tinue e xp ortin g to other countrie s? An d, I th in k th at’s som eth ing 

Con gress h as to look at —no t only in relat ion to the C lea n A ir Act, but 

in r elation to a lot of ot he r program s.

And , I ha ve to confess one of th e reaso ns I ’ye nev er ru n fo r C ongress 

is to be able to avoid some o f tho se p roblem s that a re sim ply too te chnical, or too m any proposed solutions, or too i nte rwoven with ot he r problem solutions, to r eal ly a ddress reasonably.

Mr. R yan. A no ther reason is the we ather: 90-percent hu midity is 

rotte n.

Mr. Cooper. I alw ays enj oy going to W ashing ton, because of the 

cha nge of pace. Bu t, the enj oyme nt is enh anced by t he fa ct th at I know 

I am no t going to be there very lon g, especially du ring the sum mer.

Mr. R yan. Oh, how th at hurts .

Mr. Cooper. T he fina l concern I ’d like to express is wha t you’ve— 

you 've rai sed it wi th the previou s witn ess. And , th at is ou r concern 

about F ed eral requireme nts, S ta te requireme nts versus local.

I am told th at I sh ould serve on the AB AG e nviro nm ental m anageme nt ta sk force a nd the bay area po llu tio n c ontrol d istrict i n o rder th at 

local g overn me nt can set the rules. An d, if we don’t do th at , then the 

St ate or F ed eral Gover nm ent w ill do it fo r us. An d, to pa rticip ate in 

th at a t the ex pense of a gr ea t deal of m y tim e and effo rt, an d a gr ea t 

dea l of invo lvement in th ings extran eous to my usual job—or, p ar tia lly , 

at least pa rtia lly extraneo us— to be told th at the St ate is going to 

cha nge it any way, or t he Fe de ra l Gover nm ent w ill cha nge it a nyw ay, 

kind of dis heartens one. An d, at some po int , you’d have to say, well, 

why t ell me to come dow n he re a nd hav e local g overn me nt g et invo lved, 

and set r ule s th at we th in k we can live with. An d, then, be told th at , 

while you are d oin g it, if you do n't do A, t hat yo u’re g oin g—o r B , that 

they a re goin g to do it to you. An d, the n af te r you finis h y ou find that 

they ar e g oing to chang e the rules. An d, I th in k t hat needs to be looked 

at, as well as the qu estion of u ni fo rm ity of enforcem ent a nd un ifo rm ity 

of rule s.

Mr. R yan . Do you s up po rt the plan as pres ently voted ?

Mr. Cooper. Yes. I th ink, like most peop le, I su pp or t it, bu t no t 

overly enthu sia stically. I th in k it ’s a reason able comprom ise. An d, I 

su pp or t it o nly i f I can be sure th at Con gress and E P A are going to 

pro vid e sim ila r en forcem ent in th e r est of th e country. T hat we are n ot 

going to be at a com pet itiv e disadv an tag e because we’ve g one fu rthe r, 

fas ter, tha n ou r co mp etitors in th e r est of the c ountry.

Mr. R yan. T hen you believe th at , lac kin g othe r kind s of pressu res 

elsewhere, it wou ld put us at a com pet itiv e disadv an tage in an econom ic sense ?

Air. Cooper. Yes. We are, even with th is p la n; because we have gone 

fu rthe r, faster, in Cal ifo rn ia th an othe r par ts of th e country . We do 

no t h ave trad e-offs that othe r p ar ts of th e country are allowed. I th in k
55

Oklahoma City just got a trade-off in terms of providing floating lids 

on oil storage tanks. Well, we’ve required that. Now, unless you give 

us a right to retroactive trade-offs, we are a t a competitive disadvantage in the sense that most of our rules are ahead of the rest of the 

country. And, even if we can work out a reasonable trade-off rule, 

because we are ahead on the regulations, it ’s not going to do much good.

On the other hand, one of the points we need to remember is that 

last year, 1977, was the cleanest air year in the bay area on record.

We are continuing, at the air pollution control district ward, of 

which I am a member, to adopt additional regulations, additional 

tightening of the rules, particularly for solvents and paints. And, we 

•continue to improve the air, even without the EM TF plan.

Mr. R yan. The other thing under the question I have is your reference to no-risk attitudes, the one-tenth of 1 percent against the 99.9. 

Where do we draw the line ?

Mr. CoorER. I don't know. Th at’s why I am saying it should be 

studied. I don’t know whether that approach is a valid one, or not. 

But, I don’t see that it ’s been studied. And, from what I ’ve read of the 

EP A studies of the standards, i t appears th at th eir concerns for health 

apply to a very small percentage of the population, when you get 

down-----

Mr. Ryan. Of course, pa rt of our problem is the fact they didn’t 

count that well. Now, we never used to be able to, but now we can. 

So, how many does it take ?

Mr. Cooper. Yes. I mean, if they are going to say: We’ve got to set 

it at 0.10 instead of 0.15, then they’ve got to be able to say who it is 

they are trying to protect, and identify those people. And, then-----

Mr. Ryan. Do 17 people in the bay area, who have asthma because 

of some rare emission, produce enough to trigger the loss of 2,000 jobs?

Mr. Cooper. Well, th at may be the figure. It may be hig her; i t may 

be lower. I don’t know.

Mr. Ryan. Whatever i t is. Yes.

Mr. Cooper. It may be that another approach would be to, you 

know, if there are five of those people in Livermore to say, you know, 

we'll air-condition your house and youi’ car. Or, we’ll pay if you want 

to move to San Francisco, where you don’t have the problem. But, I, 

again, you know, I ’m not advocating it. Because I really don’t know 

enough about it. I thin k i t ought to be studied.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you very much, Mr. Cooper.

Supervisor, may I ask you if you believe you were subjected to inordinate pressures from the State or the Federal Government?

Mr. Cooper. Well, I tend to resist pressure more than some other 

locally elected politicians.

Mr. Ryan. I think I ’ve heard t hat you have tha t reputation.

Mr. Cooper. I think that the argument is made continually: Unless 

you do A or B, they are going to ram it down our throats. And, to 

tha t extent, there is pressure on everybody. I generally—I have said— 

made the same speech at the air board frequently. When somebody 

says, well, we ought to adopt this ; or, we ought to approve this 

because the State ARB says we shou ld; or they are going to require 

it of u s; or, they’ll adopt it if we don’t. And, I automatically, now, 

after some practice, bounce back and sa y: Listen I came down here
56

because I am told tha t if we don't do it here, they ’ll do it. Now, if 

you are going to use that as an argument tha t I should do something, 

then I ’d j ust as soon disband this agency, and let them do the wholething.

Mr. Ryan. Yes.

Mr. Cooper. And, I, you know, I am sure our staff can give you a 

number of examples, like: Nozzles in gas stations, floating tank — 

prim ary and secondary seals on oil storage tanks. Where we’ve had 

disputes with the State and felt that they were wrong.

Mr. Ryan. I wonder why the Federal Government doesn’t pursue 

their own kinds of cleanup and conservation of energy in the buildings they own, and in the encouragement of development of solar 

energy, which is a constant source once the capital investment is 

made. Well, that’s, I guess, an idle conjecture-----

Mr. Cooper. I suspect the Congressman can answer that question 

better than I can.

Mr. Ryan. If we could, I ’d like to hear it.

Thank you very much, Supervisor Cooper, for a very excellent 

statement.

Mr. Cooper. Thank you.

Mr. Ryan. Our next witness is from the business community. Mr. 

Angelo Siracusa, executive director, of the Bay Area Council.

[Witness sworn.]

STATEMENT OF ANGELO J. SIRACUSA, EXECU TIVE DIRECTOR, BAY 

AREA COUNCIL, INC., SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Siracusa. Members of the subcommittee, I am Angelo Siracusa, 

the executive director of the Bay Area Council. The council is a nonprofit organization formed in 1945. It was supported by about 300 

business firms, primarily major firms headquartered in the San Fran ­

cisco Bay area.

Our mission is to bring economic considerations to bear on public 

policy issue at the bay area level, and to involve the business community, hopefully, in a positive way, in the governmental process.

We were the official business representatives on the ABAG environmental management task force. We devoted considerable time of our 

staff to this effort, and attempted to serve as a catalyst for corporate 

technical input into this process.

I intend to focus my remarks today on the air quality element of 

the EM P, as well as the Clean Air Act, because the air issue is the 

one which has the greatest impact on public health and on the 

economic, social, fiscal, and political vitality of the region.

I think it is fair to say that the private sector, generally, is not 

particularly happy with the mandate of the Clean Air Act. We suspect the standards established, particularly the oxidant/ozone standard, far exceed what is necessary to protect public health.

But, more importantly, we fear th at the achievement of air quality 

standards, especially within the time deadline contained in the 1977 

amendments, will very likely create unacceptable economic and social 

disruption in many of the nonattainment areas. This doesn’t even 

speak to the problem of some nonattainment areas t ha t probably cannot achieve those standards under any circumstances. I speak specifically to the Los Angeles air basin.
57

But, given the Fede ral charge, we are relatively pleased with the 

•outcome of our own air quality maintenance plan. We probably would 

not have embodied this, except as a result of the Federal mandate. We 

recognize, of course, that it is a first attempt, and tha t there must 

be an ongoing assessment of the costs and impacts, as well as the air 

quality benefits.

The assumptions, the methodology, and the data gathering, are 

somewhat suspect, and, yet, are probably the best tha t is available 

anywhere in the country. The science of air quality modeling is s till 

in its very preliminary stages. The cause and effect relationships between emissions and subsequent air quality are still not completely 

clear.

But, again, we believe th at we have developed something tha t is a 

reasonably good first step in a local response to a Federal mandate.

The charge to the environmental management task force was to 

develop a plan which met Federal requirements, but was not so 

economically and socially disruptive as to be unimplementable. Pa rt 

of the work program, then, was to evaluate the economic and social 

costs and impacts o f such a n environmental management program.

Fran kly, we believe th at the cost figures are grossly understated.

Speaking specifically to the direct costs imposed on existing industry , the plan estimates tha t an annual outlay by industry—annual, 

tha t is—of $18 million over the 23-year pla nt planning period.

These figures were developed using an unrealistically long 25-year 

equipment life, and a 6%-discount rate, the rate which is used by the 

Federal Government to calculate financing costs on municipal wastewater treatment plants. These rates do not reflect the marketplace. 

Using a more realistic amortization schedule of 10 years on such 

equipment, and the current estimated discount rate of 15 percent, those 

costs would be an annual of $43 million. And, frankly, we think t ha t 

that’s not what the total price tag will be of the private sector in th e 

bay area.

Nevertheless, we must admit to you, that there is no way to know 

what the effect will be with respect to the closing down of industry, or 

the retarding of the expansion of industry. It is impossible to project 

what those effects will be.

We are willing to project th at some of the, roughtly, 5,000 existing 

businesses affected by the plan can’t, or will not, assume the cost of 

retrofitting their facilities with pollution abatement equipment, and 

will close down.

We are especially concerned about the obstacles created for industries th at wish to, or need to, expand. Or, for industries not now located 

in the region, but considering new facility sites. Many of these firms 

may be forced to serve our growing market opportunities from other 

locations.

At the present time, the plan only calls for a case-by-case offset 

program. Added to the already high cost of doing business in the San 

Francisco Bay area, and what is commonly accepted in the business 

community as a poor economic climate in California, we don’t believe 

tha t most industries are willing to buy up pollution rights in order to 

have the privilege of constructing or enlarging a manufacturing plant 

in the bay region.

It is ironic tha t we have penalized ourselves by doing such a good
job of reducing emissions. The most restrictive limits on futu re economic growth tend to be imposed on areas, such as ours, th at enforce 

the most restrictive emission limits. Because, such areas now have the 

lowest baseline from which to seek further reductions to provide 

emission offsets.

This means tha t jurisdictions that have not acted aggressively to 

curb air pollution problems will now be rewarded by obtaining an 

advantage in attracting new industries tha t result in future economic 

growth.

A lot of this, of course, will depend upon what other nonattainment 

areas do. But, as long as we are the first to have developed a plan, and 

have an offset program tha t is considerably more strin gent than required in other parts of the country, we believe tha t industry, which, 

over the next several years, will have to complete t he abatement of 

pollutants from current operations, will lose the availability of internal offsets. And, thus, will have great difficulty modifying and expanding their plants.

Only small, uncontrolled area facilities, such as corner drycleaners, 

will remain as sources for offsets after Janu ary 1980.

The EP A has indicated that it intends to conduct a study of techniques for including growth increments for new industry in State 

implementation plans. We urge your subcommittee to promote this 

concept and to monitor EP A’s efforts to develop alternatives to the 

case-by-case offset approach. EP A assistance will be critical in view of 

the limited local resources th at can be expected during the first stage 

of the confining planning process.

With out an increment for indu strial growth, or without other than 

the case-by-case offset program, the current plan will not allow for 

industrial development of firms now subject to the new source review 

rule.

I think there is one thing th at we really ought to emphasize. There 

have been articles in the press—and you will hear testimony today— 

tha t the plan is inadequate, because it does not include land use and 

transportation controls.

While those measures have been eliminated largely on political 

grounds—not a bad reason in itself—there was, in our opinion, insufficient technical justification for their inclusion in the plan. The negligible air quality benefits were outweighed by the uncertainties and relative costs associated with such controls.

In the future we may have to revert to more indirect controls, but 

we have developed in our first plan the most reasonable approach, and 

have adopted the measures which show the most significant air quality 

improvements.

To add the others at this time would continue to embroil this plan 

in political controversy for no purpose having to do with air quality. 

The plan is technically, statutorily, procedurally, and politically, defensible. It is not deficient to meet the spirit and letter of the Federal 

law.

I don’t think we should downplay the effects of the Jarvis-Gann 

initiative, and the very real taxpayer revolt, on this planning process 

and on other environmental programs. We are not in any way advocating that we abandon our efforts to clean up the environment?However, 

it is absolutely essential th at we do a bette r job of balancing costs and 

benefits.
59

This is what President Carter’s economic advisers have been saying 

in recent weeks, and we strongly supp ort this statement. We question 

whether Congress has been sufficiently sensitive to the inflationary 

effects and the direct costs tha t stem from implementing the Clean A ir 

Act.

Let me, in the brief time I have this afternoon, cite one of the central 

problems inherent in the policies of the Federal act, which Congress 

must address in short order, if the act is to be workable.

I refer to the basis for setting standards. The act instructs the EP A 

Adm inistrator to set national ambient air quality standards to protect 

the health of the public, allowing for adequate margin of safety. And, 

of course, you’ve been hearing some testimony about what that standard ought to be. This is interpreted by EP A to mean that even the 

extremely small part—as Supervisor Cooper said, the 0.001—part of 

the population whose chronic illness makes them sensitive to the 

slightest degradation of pristine air, must be protected.

And, the margin of safety factor results in setting standards considerably below the threshold where effects can be observed under 

laboratory conditions.

Review of scientific literature indicates that adverse physiological 

changes cannot be detected below a threshold of 0.15 pa rt per million. 

Yet, the Administrator recently decided to set the standard at 0.10, a 

33-percent margin of safety. Each 100th pa rt per million, represents 

millions of dollars of investment, which have an inflationary effect, 

and which could be used elsewhere, both in the public and private 

sectors.

In a world where resources must be allocated to accomplish many 

worthwhile social goals, we doubt tha t the country can afford to satisfy 

this mandate.

We recommend t ha t your subcommittee begin to consider a more 

realistic objective for air quality. The Adm inistrator should be directed to prevent levels of pollution, which will cause an unacceptable 

health risk to a significant portion of the public, using a margin of 

safety that varies according to the damage associated with different 

pollutants. In the case of ozone, for example, the margin of safety need 

not be as conservative as the m argin for toxic pollutants.

I cannot tell you, really, what the standards ought to be for public 

health. Our organization does not have the scientific competence to do 

that. However, I thin k it is impo rtant that you ask E PA to defend its 

technical analysis, when they have such staggering implications for 

our economic and social well-being.

It is paramount that Congress look at the underlying philosophy of 

the Clean A ir Act to determine whether the so-called no risk philosophy is a valid one in light of all the conflicting public needs and goals, 

and the limited resources.

We, frankly, don’t have the answers to these questions, but we think 

that Congress has passed a law without, itself, answering them— 

answers which, I believe, are absolutely essential, if public officials are 

to act responsibly on such important public policy.

I ’ll be very happ y to answer any questions.

Mr. R yan. Th at’s an excellent statement, Angelo. I appreciate it.

Mr. Cunningham ?

Mr. Cunningham. Well, I’d like to ask a couple of questions.
60

Well, I always take a little umbrage when business run s this scare 

tactic of saying th at they are going to shut down. And, you’ve mentioned that there are certain businesses within 5,000 that could shut 

down because of this. Would you like to elaborate on th at?

Mr. Siracusa. Yes. I think I ’d be very pleased to. I might also take 

umbrage a t businesses who say they are going to shut down. And th at’s 

why I refuse to make any particu lar projections at the number of 

industries that will, or the number of the jobs th at we’ve lost. But, I 

am willing to say, without any fear of contradiction, that as a result 

of this, certain industries will have to shut down. •

I am not saying that this is going to be the sole cause. But it is a fact 

tha t the bay area is already at somewhat of a competitive disadvantage, 

as a result of other forces which are not necessarily Government imposed—eithe r high labor costs, or other effects on the marketplace, as 

well as local government regulation.

Add this to that—and there are already industries that are closing 

down for various reasons—I believe th at there will be a to ll taken.

Mr. Cunningham. Well, I ’m just going to pursue this a bit. I ’ve 

been in business all my life. And, I am new to politics. So I just—you 

have high labor; you have high transpo rtation; you have high utilities; 

you have a lot of high costs, rules, and regs.

You say that the clean air standard s are too stringent, and too 

tough. If you are qualified to say that, why aren’t you qualified—and 

I am talkin g about your association, not you, personally—why aren’t 

you qualified to say what the standards should be?

Mr. Siracusa. I ’m sorry. The portion of my testimony tha t dealt 

with bay area businesses closing down had to do with our adopting a 

plan here, before other areas have adopted their own plans. I can’t—I 

honestly can’t tell you w’hat the national effects will be, if this thing is 

uniformly enforced around the country. I don’t know that.

But we have—by virtue of our being the first to go with this plan—I 

believe, have placed ourselves at somewhat of a competitive disadvantage with other areas. Now, I can’t document. And I would be foolish 

to you to say that.

Mr. Cunningham. My second question is that in your testimony 

you say tha t the standards are too h ig h; they are too stringent. But, 

then, you also say you’re not qualified to say what they should be. *

What gives you the right to say they are too high, if you’re not qualified 

to say what they should be ?

Mr. Siracusa. Well, what I said in the testimony was th at we were 

quoting from some scientific journals that said that they were too *

high. And, I guess, I would have to believe tha t scientists, as well as 

politicians, and businessmen will tend to disagree.

Mr. Cunningham. Yes.

Mr. Siracusa. But there seems to be some scientific evidence t ha t 

they can be higher. And that was the citation I was making. I cannot 

tell you whether they ought to be 0.10, 0.11, 0.12, 0.13, 0.14, 0.15. B ut 

what I am saying is that, I think, that there probably could be for 

medical health reasons, a higher standard without jeopardizing our 

population, if I am to believe the scientific journals that we’ve been 

seeing.

Mr. Cunningham. But, do you feel the determination on closing of 

a plan t would be made solely on the compliance with that sta ndard ;
61

or would it not be made on whether or not the plant, itself, was economically viable; whether or not the depreciation had been used; 

whether there would be an adequate time to relocate ? I don’t think you 

should say th at environmental quality is a sole concern factor in plant 

closing.

Mr. Siracusa. I didn ’t say that.

Mr. Cunningham. But you’ve implied it.

Mr. Siracusa. No, I’m not. I ’m hoping I'm not.

Mr. Cunningham. Business says this all the time.

Mr. Siracusa. My testimony said tha t, coupled with other conditions 

in the bay area, the meeting of the standa rds will add one more burden 

that will probably be one of the straws tha t will make certain industries close down in the bay area. And, I ’m-----

Mr. Cunningham. You say, that , “We are willing to project tha t 

certain of the roughly 5,000 existing businesses affected by the plan 

can’t or will not assume the cost of retrofitting the ir facilities with 

pollution abatement equipment and will close down.”

Mr. Siracusa. Wh at—where are you reading from?

Mr. Cunningham. Th at’s on page 3, second paragraph.

Mr. Siracusa. “Added to the already high cost of doing business in 

the San Francisco Bay area * * * we don’t believe that most industry 

are willing to buy up pollution rights.”

Mr. Cunningham. But, that’s a second—th at ’s-----

Mr. Siracusa. It's in the same paragra ph, sir. I'm tryin g to put this 

in context. I hope that I am answering your question. T hat, I don’t 

believe that pollution control, in itself, will be the straw tha t breaks 

the camel’s back.

Mr. Cunningham. You don’t. OK.

Mr. Siracusa. But, added to all the cost of doing business, it will be 

one of the factors.

Mr. Cunningham. I would agree with you on that point. Bu t, I just 

wanted to clarify that your statement isn’t that there are some 5,000 

firms solely because of environmental quality could shut down.

Mr. Siracusa. The point I am tryin g to make here is th at with the 

new regulation, we have about 250 firms in the bay area tha t are now 

subject to w hat is called new source review rule because of the threshold limits. With the new regulation, that number will increase to 5,000. 

I am not trying to even hint th at there will be 5,000 closures, if t ha t’s 

what you are getting at ?

Mr. Cunningham. Well, yes. I would imagine that $43 million in 

cost against some $12 billion in capital investment is not going to 

jeopardize tha t capital investment.

Mr. Siracusa. I think it will jeopardize some of it.

Mr. R yan. Would it be fair to characterize your testimony in support of this environmental management plan as kind of reluctant 

“yes” ?

Mr. Siracusa. Well, we are pretty enthusiastic about the plan in 

light of the mandates. But, the mandate makes us a reluctant bridegroom, yes. I would say so.

I notice that you asked Mayor Weinreb, you know, whether if we 

had our druthers, whether we would have gone into th is voluntarily. I 

don’t think we would have. I am not speaking just for the business 

community. I think I ’m speaking for the cadre of people in all arenas
62

in public life, who are involved in this. I think that they looked upon 

this as a mandate tha t Congress had acted with, or without, wisdom, 

and, th at we had to come up with a plan th at met that. I think it was 

made fairly clear to us th at if we did n’t, that the Fede ral sanctions, 

prim arily the withholding of funds, were going to be automatic. And, 

I think tha t everybody was pretty reluctant in th is process. But, it is 

the Federal law.

Mr. Ryan. Yes, well, the Federal law isn't necessarily always pure 

perfection.

It’s always seemed rather strange to me tha t the Federal level can 

force local government and business to comply with standards, when 

the Federal Government itself is so reluctant to provide the best 

example.

I think that what th e Federal Government might do in the saving 

of energy, for example, by simply retrofitting all of its buildings to 

store heat, and cool it. And thereby reduce the level of energy consumption. When energy, itself, is the largest single force behind inflation. Therefore, a negative effect on business and growth.

It seems to me a strange kind of circumstance where the Federal 

Government would urge the consumption of nonrenewable natural resources—coal, oil, and the rest—and at the same time discourage the 

growth of solar energy, which is once invested, a permanent source 

from then on.

I guess I say these things because in these hearings, at least so far, 

the witnesses we’ve heard seem to say : “Right, we should do what we 

are told to do ; and, we will try to do the best we can, like the good 

soldiers, without any more biting back,” when you see the negative 

effects and you see the lack of capacity of the Feds to clean up their 

own house.

I don’t invite you to engage in any kind of broad-ranging criticism 

of what we are not doi«ng, but—while your comments are well taken— 

I am impressed, I guess, by the almost universality of the comment 

that, “Well, it's the best we can do, given the choice”—when, actually, 

there is no choice.

I wonder what will happen—and, if you have any comment, or if 

you have studied and considered in the Bay Area Council—what may 

happen if the State air and resources board and water quality control 

board, or the Federal authorities, throw it out, and say : “Here ’s what 

you're goingto do now whether you like it or not.”

Mr. Siracusa. I, frankly, don’t see tha t happening. I think that the 

State air resources board has made some noises that, it would like to 

strengthen the plan. I think that would be unfortunate. Because, I 

believe that in spite of the Federal mandate, which we might be critical of, there was also a very good opportunity. And, that was: Here is 

how you get from point A to pobnt B—I mean, here is what you have 

to do to get from point A to point B. You get there the way you want. 

And. we did it, I think, through a fairly acceptable technical and 

political process.

And, I think that the Federal or State government intervening and 

saying that what we’ve done is inadequate would not likely be done 

on a technical ground, more on political. And, I think tha t would be 

unfortunate. Because, we have a very good plan, that. I think, can get 

us to a standard. I don’t know what we are going to do in other non-
63

atta inm en t areas, w here I th in k it is going to be technica lly impossible 

to do so. B ut, I th in k, we h ave a plan that , at least, gets us mo vin g in 

th at direction, anyway.

I th in k th at th e E P A ou gh t to be pr ou d of wha t’s h ap pe ned here. 

I t’s been a case stu dy , and, I th ink, a ve ry good one.

Mr. Ryan. A re you wo rried, a s spokesman for the Ba y Ar ea Co uncil abo ut losing wh ate ver com pet itiv e edge you may have wi th othe r 

areas in the cou ntr y fo r business?

Mr. Siracusa. Y es ; we’ve been ta lk in g a bout t ha t. A nd, th is is really 

wh at my ans wer was inten ded to be to Mr. Cu nning ham. Tha t we 

hav e often tim es by ou r own choice an d ou r own action s chosen to 

accept stan da rd s t hat are high er th an th e Fe de ral s tand ard. A nd. t hat , 

in itse lf, pro bably places us at a c om pet itiv e d isa dvantag e.

We have seen—a nd you talke d e arlie r abo ut the Dow Ch emical pr ob ­

lem—wh ere we openl y, and purpo sel y, rejected an indu str ial company because of ou r in terp re tatio n of a Fe de ral sta tute. An in te rp re ­

ta tio n th at was no t bei ng made in othe r pa rts of the c ountr y. An d, so, 

we th in k t hat this whole q uestion of u ni fo rm ity needs to be add ressed. 

Tha t the re a re othe r pa rts of t he coun try t hat are c losing th ei r eyes to 

these kin ds of problems. An d, because we have chosen to be a littl e 

more e nv iro nm ental ly a ware, we hav e placed o urselves at th at sort of 

a competitive disa dvantag e.

Air. R yan. Th an k you, v ery much.

Mr. Siracusa. Th an k you.

Mr. R yan. Glad to hear from th e B ay Area C ouncil, any time.

Air. Charles Kinney, Associated Building Indu stry of Northern 

California.

[W itn ess sw orn.]

Air. R yan. If you could lim it yo ur rem ark s i*n any way , althou gh 

the y a re very sh ort he re, I wo uld app recia te it.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES KINNEY, GENERAL COUNSEL FOR ASSOCIATED BUILDING INDUSTRY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Air. K in ne y. I appreciat e being ta ke n ou t of ord er. As you can see, 

my comm ents are li mite d to about fo ur pages.

I th in k there are sufficient copies f or everyone in t he audience.

Air. R yan. Good.

Air. K in ne y. We can ju st disp ense with going over th at , and go 

stra ig ht to w hatev er qu estions you ma y have.

As a pr elim inary sta tem ent, the A B I bo ard of dir ector s ne ve r 

endorsed the plan , as e ith er d ra ft ed by staff or as cu rre ntly b ein g sen t 

to th e vari ous agencies.

Th at is no t to say we feel th at th e ABAG staff and all th e par tici ­

pants , i nc luding ourselv es, di dn ’t do a g ood job. AAre thi nk t hat every ­

one did do a good job. Bu t, there are vario us reasons why my bo ar d 

did no t end orse th e pla n. One reason , I th ink, is th at some are no t 

totally sold o»n reg ional go ver nm ent.

Air. R yan. May be, we can beg in then. AAre will acce pt yo ur te st imony as p ar t o f the record.

And . if I can ju st ask you a qu estion, th en. I f I can p roceed as I have 

with o ther witnesses.

Does y ou r a ssociation —does you r g roup spon sor, o r a re th ey i n su p-
64

port, and are they in approval of the present environmental management plan approved by AB AG ?

Mr. K inney. Our association has not endorsed the present environmental management plan.

Mr. Ryan. OK. Very good.

Second question has to do with whether you believe there was undue 

pressure placed upon your organization, or any organization, to support this particu lar version ?

Mr. Kinney. I think there was undue pressure in light of some of 

the letters that were sent to the representatives of the ABAG operation, both at the staff level and at the public official level. In particular, 

for example, a February 6, 1978, letter, to Diane Feinstein, who was 

the chairma-n of the environmental management task force at the 

time, from Mary Nichols, the vice chairman of the ARB, who now has 

lef t to become involved with the Los Angeles County attorney ’s office, 

I believe.

Do you have a copy of that letter ?

Mr. Ryan. We do have that, yes.

Mr. Kinney. Then, there is some correspondence between Assemblyman Dan Boatright and Tom Quinn. 1 assume you have copies of 

those.

Mr. Ryan. And we have those, too.

Mr. K inney. I echo Supervisor Cooper’s statements tha t at certain 

levels here, various agency staffs tend to indicate which way they 

would like elected officials to go in the bay area.

We have made a strong case for the housing industry that we are 

being regulated, essentially, out of existence, for various reasons.

The phrase that I particularly like is from Tom Quinn to Danial 

Boatrigh t, of April 13,1978, which starts out :

Dear Dan : Thank you for advising me of your concerns about how California 

intends to comply with the Federal Clean Air Act requirements in the bay area.

1 don't know if Tom Quinn speaks fo r all of California. I guess he 

was given that power. But, I do appreciate the Federal Water Pollu ­

tion Control Act amendment which allows regional joint power agreements for groups of people to get together and create a plan. What I 

do not appreciate is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments used to comprehensively plan. To that extent, air quality agreements—or agreements reached under Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments on air quality, are being turned into “memorandums of understanding” currently being agreed to by the air pollution control district, ABAG, and the metropolitan transportation 

commission.

I refer you to the most recently approved “memorandum of understand ing.” I don’t have a date on mine. It refers to ABAG as the lead 

agency. This is fine, if you accept that, ultimately, all regional 

agencies will be combined into one. I am not so sure tha t they will be. 

I am not so sure tha t the various regional agencies that are currently 

in existence, such as the regional water quality control board, have 

been single-purpose agencies.

For example, the home building industry has been under a mandate 

of the RWQCB or has felt the effects of a mandate, of the E-zero 

population projections that limited sewer grant funding, and, thus,
65

the availability of sewer hookups for home building, for the sake of 

air quality.

Mr. Ryan. Let me ask you a question. You are the building industry, 

or a part of the building industry, in the bay area. Has HUD contacted your industry, your association, in specific to respond to the 

legislation passed by Congress, the Air Quality and Water Quality 

Control Act ?

Mr. Kinney. We contacted HUD. And, we didn’t get much help. 

Right now, currently being reviewed by the California Office of Planning and Research, is AB AG’s answer to the housing problem, which 

we don’t feel is much of an answer. They call it the regional housing 

plan. It has a lot of statements about needs and about data collected. 

But, it doesn’t have any assurances tha t the housing is going to be 

built.

As you are aware, there is no vested right to build a house in the 

State of California today, or in most of the parts of the country. If 

you own a piece of land and you want to build a house, you must get 

permission to build that house. You don’t have the righ t to go ahead 

and build it.

Mr. Ryan. Let me ask you. As an uneducated observer, when the 

average price of a house goes from $35,000, $40,000 a year in 5 years, 

to almost $100,000 a year, certainly, one of the things it indicates is 

there isn’t a sufficient housing supply. There’s an enormous demand 

for more housing. Well, now, if we couple the demand for more housing with the fact that we are trying to cut down on the number of 

auto emissions, tha t is, the amount of transportation by private 

vehicles, doesn’t i t make sense, then, for the D epartment of Transportation and HUD to get into the act, and begin trying to encourage the 

growth and development of housing in the central city, where the jobs 

are, so you don’t have to travel ?

Mr. K inney. Th at would hold true if people wanted to live in the 

central city.

Mr. Ryan. Well, but they don’t want to live there because the housing is rotten.

Mr. Kinney. Th at’s true.

Mr. Ryan. Well, what if we had housing that was attractive?

As we have not, for instance, here in San Francisco, out there on 

North Beach. I mean, there’s no vacancy facto r at North Beach. 

There’s no vacancy fac tor along tha t North Beach area where they’ve 

had all tha t new construction.

Mr. Kinney. Since 30 percent of the automobile travel is for the 

job-related commute, and 70 percent is for shopping and personal 

trips, the fact that I would live in San Francisco only takes care of 

30 percent of the air pollution problem caused by the automobile.

Mr. Ryan. Well, don’t you live where you shop ?

Mr. Kinney. I try to live where I work. I had to pick a spot in 

between, because my wife and I are both professionals. And, it happens to be Oakland.

Mr. Ryan. Hardly typical.

Mr. Kinney. Well. I don’t know if it’s hard ly typical. Most of my 

friends are also young professionals.

Mr. Ryan. Well, I ’m speaking of your building industry, as such.
66

When you have x number of persons in a particu lar mass, the residential as well as the occupational demand becomes present. If you 

began to build the kinds of areas tha t there are now in a few places 

in San Francisco, and a few places around the bay area, where people 

can live and shop, such as the Embarcadero Center where the old 

produce market used to be on the Embarcadero. A good example. 

Th at’s a completely self-sustaining area. Before it was slums. If we 

had tha t kind of policy that encouraged th e building industry to build 

hundreds of thousands of new units in the bay area alone, wouldn’t 

tha t tend to resolve, with the same degree of effectiveness, the problems t hat are being addressed by EPA? Where they line, and shove, 

and bully, and push, and threaten the existing cities with the loss of 

local control, with loss of autonomy, witli the loss of funds, wouldn’t 

tha t do the same thing ?

Mr. Kinney. I don’t believe tha t the answer to the housing problem in the bay area—at least, from the consumer’s point of view, 

which are the people we are trying to satisfy—is to stack the houses 

on top of each other, by buying an expensive piece of land in downtown, and redoing the utilities, to accommodate it. I don’t think t ha t’s 

the answer.

Mr. Ryan. Well, what does your industry say about it?

Air. Kinney. Our industry is divided. There are some people in our 

industry that are quite willing to build the townhomes and condominiums in the inner-city area. They are willing to provide the necessary security, so it’s safe. They are willing to redo the utilities, which 

means take out the old cast iron sewer pipes.

Mr. Ryan. But, your industry has no position on it, as a whole ?

Mr. Kinney. As a whole, we have no position to endorse, or not to 

endorse. We did make a statement, from our chairman of the board, 

quite a while back, tha t we felt tha t single-purpose planning was 

not appropriate.

And single-purpose planning, at tha t time, focused on the oxidant 

standard, the 0.08 p art per million, per hour. I have read the Janu ­

ary 1978 EP A Advisory Pan el’s report, and all the studies they quote. 

These studies get down to 0.15. The actual, easily measurable effects 

start about 0.25 and 0.20 pa rt per million, per hour, of oxidant. I 

believe that 0.15 standard is sufficient. But th at’s something for EP A 

to address. There needs to be some corrections in that area, or some 

guidance by Congress to EP A in tha t area, because, EP A does not 

seem to be taking into account the social and economic disruption 

that the consumer, the homeowner, in the California area is facing. 

They are not taking into account his desires.

Mr. Ryan. It seems to me that when we know for certain, with absolute certainty, tha t we live now with the expectation of the disappearance of oil as a natu ral resource, tha t we don’t take any more 

consideration of other alternatives than simply snuffing out local 

control in an effort to make our cities over.

Mr. Kinney. If I may, one of the responses to infilling—which 

seems to be the recent cry by both HUD and EP A as the solution 

to all evil—is tha t infilling can work both ways.

If you want to look at it from another view, BART—Bay Area Rap id Transit—was the worst thin g to happen to places like Walnut 

Creek and Concord, which could have become independent cities on
67

their own right. Essentially, it allowed San Francisco to be the hub 

and the center of all activity, which may not be a wise thing to foster.

If you go and ignore places like W alnu t Creek, Concord, and small 

towns that want to become a well-balanced community, and not let 

them have those heavy industries tha t the plan now admits cannot 

come into the bay area, I thin k you may exacerbate the problem.

Mr. Ryan. Th ank you, very much, Mr. Kinney.

Mr. Kinney. Th ank you, sir.

[Mr. Kinney’s prepared statement follows:]

P repared Statem ent of Charles Kin ne y, General Counsel for Associated

Building I ndustry of Northern California

Dear Chairman Rya n and Mem bers: I am Charles Kinney, General Counsel 

for the Associated Building Industry of Northern California. The Associated 

Building Industry is a tra de association representing the residential and ligh t 

commercial construction industries. Fo r the past two years, I have served as 

an alt ernate on the Enviro nmenta l Management Plan Task Force, which was a 

forty-six member tas k force represe nting government, private industry, and 

public int ere st groups. I was also a member of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Air Quality Maintenance Plan. In add ition to being an attorney, 

I have a degree in mechanical engineering.

STANDARDS

The Environmen tal Management Plan is based in pa rt on the Fed era l and 

sta te air qua lity standard s. Almost everyone has expressed diss atisfaction with 

the present federa l prima ry ambient ai r qua lity sta ndard for photochemical 

oxidant. Until the natur all y occurring background level can be ascertained , and 

the error in the measuring ins trume nts calculated, it is difficult to justify the 

present ‘safety factor" in this oxidant standard .

It was recently reported by a representativ e of the Bay Area Pollution 

Control District th at the oxidan t levels seem to follow the previous year's rainfall pat tern. Although only preliminary results of the BAAPCD’s report are 

available, it seems th at seventy perc ent of the oxidan t conc entrations in Redwood City could be due to hydrocarbons produced by green plants. The report 

also indicated th at sixty perc ent of the Livermore Valley oxidant problem could 

be caused by p lan ts in the O akland and Hayward hills. As you know, byproducts 

of photosynthesis include complex hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons ultima tely 

cre ate photochemical oxidant. (Ref. BAAPCD Sandburg Rep ort of Jun e 1978; 

Environmen tal Protection Agency, Altshuller lette r of April 6, 1978)

The margin of err or in the measuring ins trume nts has been guesstimated at 

±0.02 parts per million per hour (pp m/hr) since two mete rs in close proximity 

registered this difference when measuring oxidan t concentrations. (BAAPCD Lou 

Robinson)

According to the Janu ary 1978 EPA Advisory Panel’s report concerning the 

oxidan t standard , the lowest oxident conc entration exposure th at resulted in 

some effects among sensitive persons and asthm atics was 0.15 ppm/hr. The 

proposed sta ndard of 0.10 ppm/ hr may be as unrea listic as the pre sen t sta nd ard 

of 0.08 pp m/h r, given the na tural oxidant-producing processes and the error in 

the mea surin g instru ments.

economy

The Enviro nmenta l M anagement P lan process was to insure ba lancing between 

economic, social, and environ men tal concerns. An equitable balancing did not 

occur. The margin of “safe ty” of the oxidan t sta ndard is causing a general 

economic slowdown to the Bay Area, since new industries, especially heavy 

Industry cannot satisfy the BAAPCD New Source Review regulation requirements to qualify to do business in the Bay Area. The EMP contains an earlier 

version of the BAAPCD’s New Source Review rule. The NSR offset policies are 

essentially useless because the offsets are either used up or being coveted by 

existing industry. A classic example is the inability of Wickland Oil Company 

to obtain permission for an oil term inal facility. Wickland Oil cannot obtain 

writte n evidence of offsets to qualify fo r authority to construct, yet by con structing, it would not p urchase its supplies from other dealers. Other dea lers under-
standably won’t guarantee tha t they will not sell their oil to others if Wickland 

Oil doesn’t need it. Since oil demand is fairly inelastic in the Bay Area, these 

other dealers won’t be able to sell that oil; so the “offset” happens in practice, but 

is not confirmed on paper. Thus, no permit for Wickland Oil. (BAAPCD Report 

of March 31,1978)

LAND USE

The Environmental Management Plan wisely deleted the so-called land use 

controls. These controls would have increased densities in the intercities in order 

to shorten the daily home-job commute, in an effort to reduce the oxidant precursors (i.e. nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons). It should be noted tha t the 

automobile commute only caused thir ty percent of this air pollution problem, 

whereas shopping and personal trips contributed to approximately seventy percent of the air pollution problem. (Air Quality Maintenance Plan Technical 

Advisory Committee Memo No. 23, Nov. 1977). Since the air modeling studies 

showed only minor air quality improvements due to land use controls, it was 

argued tha t densiflcation did not necessarily mean cleaner air (ABAG Issue 

Paper No. 2, May 1977). Controlling residential and commercial uses of land in 

an effort to reduce air pollution would create no direct benefit in reduced air 

pollution, but did cause substantial social and economic disruptions (AQMP 

TAC Memo “Disclaimed” No. 15, Sept. 1977; AQMP TAC Memo No. 15/Assessment Tech Memo No. 4, Jan. 1978).

After these substantial technical arguments were given, it was suggested that 

including land use controls could result in federal intervention in a traditionally 

local issue. For this reason, the land use control measures were deleted.

EMP CONTINUING PLA NNING PROCESS

The Environmental Management Plan calls for various programs in areas of 

Water Quality, Water Supply, Solid Waste, and Air Quality. Some of these programs require annual reports, monitoring, coordination activities, studies, and 

public education programs. The Continuing Planning Process must be diligently 

observed to assure t hat these programs are effectively and efficiently administered.

In closing, it is interesting to note that many supposedly important programs 

in the EMP may have to be deleted due to funding limitations caused by the recent 

Jarvis-Gann Initiative. Many of these programs were either not mandated or 

simply not necessary.

Mr. Ryan. Mr. Carl Pope, Sierra Club.

[Witness sworn.]

STATEMENT OF CARL POPE, SIERRA CLUB

Mr. Pope. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee staff, I regret to 

say there was a communication foulup on our p art. I do not have prepared testimony for you. But, will submit th at for you, for the record, 

and you may proceed with your questions.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you.

Do you have any opening statement ?

Mr. Pope. Yes. I’d be glad to make a statement.

On behalf of the Sierra Club, which is a national environmental 

organization, with 180,000 members, headquartered here in California, 

we would like to say we think it’s extremely appropriate tha t this subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations is 

looking into the environmental management plan.

Our feeling, having followed this process closely, is tha t the real 

issues which this plan raises are, indeed, issues of governmental relations and governmental organization rath er than conventional questions of pollution control.

In general, we were supportive of the plan as it emerged. But, with 

regard to the critical air quality maintenance plan, we believe tha t the 

failure of tha t plan to come to grips with the land use issues, which, for
69

a wide variety of reasons of which air pollution is only one—energy 

conservation is another—we believe to be critical to the future of the 

bay area. The final incapacity of the processes th at were established to make a regional commitment to mass transit, which is clearly called for by the act, in this area, and which is beneficial to our citizens, vital to the region’s economy, illustrate that we still have, at the local level, some 

basic dilemmas in trying to do comprehensive planning.

e Now, both in the statement by Mr. Peevey, and in the statement we’ve just heard with regard to the land use issue, the comment was made tha t it was inappropriate to address these kinds of land use questions in the context of a single-purpose, or several-purpose, plan-

. ning process such as this was. The Sierra Club, basically, would concur with the judgment tha t 

it would be better to address these kinds of land use planning questions 

through a comprehensive regional land use plan ning process. We have for a number of years struggled, both at the Federal level, at the local level, and here in the bay area, to obtain a regional land use planning process that would be comprehensive. And, we have consistently come up against opposition from the industrial sector, from the building sector, aid from the tu rf problems involving various 

local entities jealous of their prerogatives. I think tha t some of the problems we’ve had in the bay area devel­ oping this plan illustrate again that many, many of the problems that we face in society are being—solutions to those problems are being thwarted by the very slow speed at which we are restructuring our complicated, overlapping, and, in many ways, outmoded structures of 

local government. In the entire discussion about the land use elements of the plan, there was an enormous amount of discussion about who was going to do it. And, relatively speaking, much less discussion of what ought to be 

done. Now, T feel tha t what the debate about what the land use future of 

the bay area ought to look like, the debate about city-centered growth, compact growth, as opposed to the more diffuse model, was drawn only

• tangentially into this entire process. Because, we were continually dragged off into discussions abou t: Well, if we do this, it would involve the Feds in the a ct ; or, this disrupts the existing structure of local government; or wTe shouldn’t do it in the context of single-purpose plan-

• ning agency. Well, I don’t think at the moment we have any other such agency. I think th at ’s a very serious problem. I think it’s a problem tha t has resulted in a good, but less than optimal, pollution control plan for 

the bay area. And, I thin k it ’s a problem tha t is going to handicap us, as we try to deal with other social problems. I think the Congressman’s remarks about the energy problem, and running out of oil, were very apropos. We don’t, rig ht now, have any mechanisms here in the bay area that enable us to shape future land use p atterns in a way that will take 

into account the likely energy future. And those kinds of questions are. really, the central questions, which are posed by this plan. Now, beyond tha t, as I ’ve said, we feel tha t in one area, transportation—specifically, mass tran sit—the plan as
70

developed does not comply with the mandate of the Clean Air Act. The 

act says th at the extension from 1982 nntil 1987 for treatment of oxidant and carbon monoxide standard is to be earned. I t is to be earned 

by areas adopting all reasonably available measures.

And, specifically listed in the conference report, as a reasonably 

available measure, is an increase in mass transit.

Now, this plan, as it was developed by the staff of ABAC , contained such a commitment to the 35-percent increase in regional transit 

ridership, funded bv a combination of available revenues, increased 

bridge and highway tolls, and a regional parking tax.

As the p lan finally emerged and was sent to the air resources board, 

the commitment is totally absent. And. as a result of the passage of 

proposition 13, and resultant increases in transit fares, we are faced 

here in the bay area with a very substantial diminution, rather than 

an increase in the ability of our mass transit services to meet the 

needs of our people.

So, we feel, in this one particular area, the plan clearly fails to meet 

the mandate of the act. and we would hope tha t State air resources 

board and the FPA would remedy this defect.

We would hope that down the road we would come up with, here in 

the. bay area—with help, T would hope, from the State of California 

and the Federal Government—with some mechanisms which will enable us to address this land use issue.

Because, we do think they are important issues for pollution control reasons, and fo r other reasons.

But, on the whole, we are supportive of the remaining elements of 

the plan. And. we think that—especially in the areas of water pollution 

and solid waste—it is a pioneering effort tha t should be encouraged.

Mr. R yan. You speak for the one environmental group in the bay 

area, in California, and perhaps the Nation, that has been more fulsomely praised and more roundly damned than any other group, which 

indicates that you certainly have a point of view of your own.

I ’ve been a little disappointed th at the Sierra Club has spent so 

much time on espousing those causes, many of which T support, but 

which are. essentially, negative. In the sense of: “Don’t do this: 

don’t do that: let’s have less of this: and less of that.” Instead 

of providing more positive alternatives. I go back to questions I asked 

earlier of the building industry.

Y ould there not be clearer air, more open space, better water conditions, if we just use the land we alreadv occupy more effectively, 

use it more carefully? I go back to San Francisco-—when tomorrow 

afternoon we will probably still be in session here—you would be able 

to fire a cannon down Montgomery Street and not hit. anybody. It's a 

weekend. Now. why is that space empty, when it no longer has value 

from an environmental point of view as far as wildlife is concerned, 

as fa r as w ater is concerned, as far as air is concerned ? W hy don't we 

use that space better than we do? W hv don't we begin to clear land of 

substandard housing, leave it open? In effect, use the land more 

carefully, and do it in a positive sense ?

I ’m te rribly impressed by wha t’s happened in the last 15 years in 

the produce market area in San Francisco, the old Produce market, 

down there on the Fmbarcadero. Taking an area tha t was blighted, if 

there ever was one. and making it into an area which is one of the
71

most delightful places to live—if you want to live in an urban environment.

And increasingly, we begin to complain about the choked air, and 

the polluted water, and all of the rest of it, in the suburban areas. If 

that’s our futur e, especially, when we can look forward to the time 

when there are no such things as gasoline-powered automobiles.

If we know that's going to come to an end, whatever i t s cost, it will 

certainly take care of the problems of air pollution—when there are no 

more, automobiles to any substantive extent.

What can the Sierra Club do now to offer positive alternatives instead of an environmental management plan tha t says: ‘‘Don’t do this 

anymore; clean up more here.” It’s, essentially, a mopping up exercise. We want to spend more money for waste-management plants, 

for sewage plants to clean up the water, for restrictions to make it less 

easy to use the automobile in given places.

Has the Sierra Club been involved in any kind of discussion, or examination, or planning in tha t direction; or does it confine itself to 

a more narrow charter of the past ?

Mr. P ope. Well, the club's charter, over the past years, has been 

broadening very substantially. The major new th rus t which we have 

undertaken in the last 12 months—and, I think, 12 months ago your 

question would have made me squirm much more than it does today— 

has been in the direction of positive programs in the urban areas.

I think the point that you made that, if we are going to try to 

preserve open space, we have to make the spaces we have already used 

attractive and liveable, and we have to use them better, is a very 

obvious one. And, I can't defend how long it took us to do anything 

about it. But, in past years we have embarked on a fairly major effort 

to develop our expertise in the area of urban public works. We've 

testified frequently with regard to the public works programs before 

committees of the Congress.

We are hosting next February, probably in Philadelphia, a major 

national conference, in conjunction with the National Urban League, 

to explore ways in which we can work the N ational Urban League to 

develop urban programs.

One of our top four legislative priorities this year is going to be 

help pass some of the elements of President Carter’s urban plan, 

which we believe—although, they are not, necessarily, the entire 

answer—are important first steps towards revitalizing our urban 

areas.

I think, increasingly the club is recognizing tha t it has a responsibility to educate its own membership. There has been a problem in 

San Francisco, and some of our other cities, with some of these 

proposals. Because, the residents of neighborhoods, which are already 

there, have resisted the higher densities, which might enable us to 

make better use of some of these areas.

And, we recognize now tha t we have a responsibility to educate our 

constituency to the fact that higher density is the flip side of open 

space. The "two are on a seesaw, and you can’t have them both be up.

In addition, I feel that the crucial things which should now be restored throu gh tli is environmental management plan are not the 

regulatory elements. I mean, I thin k there may be some problems 

there. But, tha t is not what I see as being absolutely crucial to restore.
It seems to me that what it is crucial to restore is the mass tra nsi t elements which were taken out. Because, I think tha t one of the things 

tha t makes the bay area so livable—I speak as someone who grew 

up in W ashington, D.C., and lived there most of my life—is t hat by 

contract-----

Mr. Ryan. You have improved your life.

Mr. Pope. Y es. I have improved my life. And, one of the reasons 

I've improved my life is tha t we have, relatively speaking, very 

good transit, by comparison with what I grew up with.

And, I now see that threatened. I think we need to renew that commitment. We need to develop some tran sit approaches which will 

work better in some of our less centralized cities—cities like San 

Jose. I thin k that's going to take a lot of creativ ity; and, it ’s going 

to take some money. And, that's an unpopular th ing to say. B ut it is 

going to take some money.

We've put a lot of money into highways. And, I think, we have to 

balance that now by putting money into transit.

I would hope t hat over the next 2 or 3 years, as the club does more 

and more in this area, tha t we might begin to develop a credibility, 

which, frankly, we've lacked. That credibility has made it difficult for 

us to do things. Because we couldn’t find p artne rs to work with sometimes. I tried 2 years ago to find some building trades unions in San 

Francisco, to sit down with and work out a program we could push 

in Sacramento in low-income housing rehabilitation. I frankly, don’t 

think they thought I was serious. I couldn’t find anybody to work with. 

But I hope tha t’s changing.

I thin k tha t we've got to do a lot of these things tha t make our 

cities livable and to keep people there. There’s no question about it.

I would suggest that you might obtain for the record of this hearing, 

Congressman, an article which a Renee DeBose wrote in the last 

month’s issue of the EP A Journal. Which is, basically, an article on 

how to make our cities livable. And, how very modest little steps— 

using our waterfronts better—he points out how badly we use the 

waterfronts in American cities. I t can really make a difference. And, 

you might want to obtain that for the hearing record.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you. I appreciate your appearance here, Mr. 

Pope. And, I hope those ambitions are realized.

The next witness we have is Ms. Katherine Dunlap, California 

Council for Environmental and Economic Balance.

Mr. Peevey. I realize this is subject to humor. I am not Katherine 

Dunlap.

Mr. Ryan. One would surmise that.

Mr. P eevey. Mr. Chairman, I am the president of the same organization. Mrs. Dunlap, who resides in southern California could not be 

here.

Air. RyatZ Be seated and give your name.

[Witness sworn.]

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PEEVEY , PRES IDENT, CALIFORNIA 

COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO NMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BALANCE

Mr. Peevey. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name 

is Michael Peevey. I am the president of the California Council for
73

Environmental and Economic Balance, of which—as I already indicated—Katherine Dunlap is the chairman. We divide our activities 

in northern and southern California. 1 am a resident of this area. W e 

are a statewide organization of organized labor, the business community, and many other people who believe in environmental improvement, 

but believe th at it has to go hand in hand with a healthy econojny.

I know it has been a long day for you, and you've been through 

this lengthy testimony on the environmental management plan and 

the AQMP, and so forth. Let me just sav, I have a prepared statement. I believe you have it. We provided 50 copies to you.

We, as an organization, along with many other organizations, 

were intimately involved in this process ever since the dra ft EM P was 

prepared and released to the public late in 1977.

We were, initially, very critical of the ABAG staff proposals regarding land-use controls, and the requirement that best available 

control technology be applied to existing sources, as well as new 

sources.

I am happy to say tha t due to the efforts of many, many people, 

I thin k tha t we have a plan now, as it was adopted by the general 

assembly on Jun e 10; and shipped off to Sacramento for the beginning of the review process there ; and, then, ultimately, to EP A. that 

is generally a good document and supportable by very many people.

There was an interesting example of that in early May, when we 

sat together—my organization, the Sierra Club, the League of Women 

Voters, the Bay Area Council, the Coalition of Labor and Business, Supervisor Feinstein who had been chairman of the environmental management task force of ABAG, the president of ABAG, 

and many others at a joint press conference announcing support for 

the plan as it had been revised.

Since tha t time, I understand th at one or two of those organizations 

have had second thoughts as to the ir endorsement. But, I thin k the 

general thrust of that press conference, and attitudes expressed there, 

were the appro priate ones. We have not backed off one iota from that 

commitment.

In terms of my statement, on pages 7 through 9, there are five 

specific points that I th ink we learned from this process th at for this 

committee’s consideration in the future, I would suggest perhaps some 

.thought and attention be given.

Fi rst: There was really a lack of adequate legal and technical 

guidance for and to ABAG in making air quality judgments in the 

plan. And, I think, that that lack of guidance by EPA, by the State, 

in par t, undermined public confidence in the process, as well as it 

did private confidence.

The most important lack, in our view, was the failure of EP A to 

draw up and provide supporting regulations based on the 1977 amendments to the act.

There were other key problem areas, however. The advice handed 

down by agencies higher up than ABAG were, oftentimes, insufficient, 

or contradictory, or incomplete. I suppose, the best example of this 

is the whole debate over the land-use control element, which involved 

EPA , the air resources board, and ABAG in the statement and the 

issuance of inconsistent opinions regarding the controls, their necessity. and their legal requirements.
74

Second: The standard for review by local government was insufficiently detailed. The result was inconsistent review patterns across 

the bay area, among the 80-plus cities, and the 7—originally 8, and 

later 7—counties within the A BAG jurisdiction.

Which meant tha t the public opportunity for understanding and 

comment on the plan differed widely from area to area. The net result 

was tha t some local areas had a great deal of inpu t into the plan; 

others had almost none.

I would add that I think it, in part, was the press’ responsibility. 

The inability of some of the major metropolitan presses in the bay 

area to get over and even explain to its readership—particularly 

northern California’s biggest daily—what this whole plan was about, 

increased public uncertainty and concern.

Th ird : A critical deficiency was the inadequate lack of time for 

review of the important documents by both public and private interest groups. Often documents would become available from ABAG 

only the day before, or the day of a given discussion of a specific 

topic. In order to insure the kind of fundamental fairness applied 

in due process, it would seem as though Federal law ought to spell 

out to some extent in the regulation, the time deadlines for the availability of this type of a review process.

Fourth: There was a critical lack of understanding of the standards to be attained and maintained to satisfy the requirements of the 

act—the Clean A ir Act, this is. And. my comments are only restricted 

to that.

The failure of any agency to provide a concise and understandable 

guidance document at the outset of the process was a deficiency th at 

could not be remedied, even by groups with high degrees of technical 

understanding of the process.

I think it’s fair to say tha t few people, even today, really understand what the standards are for attainment.

And, five: Aside from this basic confusion over standards, it may 

very well be th at the objective requirements of the act may be overly 

stringent, although the recent modification of the oxidant standard 

from 0.08 to 0.10 part, per million, is a positive step, providing some 

leeway for stationary sources. It is questionable in many areas whether 

attainment in a timely fashion is possible.

The standards ought to be reexamined fully with an eye toward 

achieving a reasonable balance between competing needs for clean air, 

economic stability, and progress.

This also implies finding the best assignment of responsibility at 

the national level, between large national sources of pollutants, such 

as the automobile industry, and local authorities, in the meeting of 

legitimate and necessary public health needs in the air quality area.

Mr. Chairman, those are the five particu lar points that I ’d like to 

make here.

I ’ll be happy to answer any questions.

Air. Ryan. T’ll ask you the same questions I asked others.

In spite of what you say there, which is a well balanced kind of document that you present, you say you are satisfied with the document, 

but do you think it will be accepted by the Feds?

Mr. Peevey. It ’s conjecture.

Mr. Ryan. Sure.
<o

Mr. P eevey. I t’s the intent—to be blunt about it—the inten t o f my 

organization to do anything tha t it can to tr y to insure its adoption by 

the air resources board, anid then ultimately by EP A.

Mr. Ryan. Why 'i

Mr. Peevey. Because, we think it is a good plan, given the strictures and the requirements of the Clean Air Act. And, there are problems, perhaps, with tha t act reg arding the standards.

But, be that as it may, i t is the law of the land at the moment and it 

is necessary for this area to come up with a plan that can go ahead, so

* tha t come mid-next year we do not have any slowdowns, or stoppages, 

or cutoff of Federal funds, or all of the other things that are provided 

as possibilities in the act for nonattainm ent areas, without a State 

implementation plan th at ’s approved by the Environmental Protec-

* tion Agency.

Mr. R yan. Now, very respectfully—I've been here since 10 o’clock 

this morning, Mr. Cunningham, and the staff. And, I ve heard over, 

and over, and over again that this is a plan tha t ought to be adopted. 

But, the amount of enthusiasm really underwhelms me. Well, it ’s here, 

and it ’s been adopted. So, 1 guess, this is what we have to go with.

Do you like it for itself, alone V Or, do you like it because it’s the least 

alternative?

One of the concerns I have is that there is a kind of coercion, or the 

appearance of coercion. ‘‘Eithe r you take this, if you don't like this, 

wait and see what we got for you backstage, we haven’t even showed 

you yet.” W hich comes down to some kind of imaginative construction li ke: “We’ll, get a Federal court order for a city to comply with a 

particu lar kind of judgment;” failing that, “they will be fined; and 

so on, and so on ; and so on;” and then no F ederal help on top of th at; 

and, suddenly, they are just in worse shape. Is tha t the reason for your 

support? Or, are there positive reasons for it?

Mr. Peevey. Well, I don’t think that th ere’s—we are not children 

here. And, I don’t thin k there’s any doubt in anyone’s mind th at there 

has been an element of coercion, implied or expressed. Expressed in a 

couple of particular cases from the State a ir resources board; implied 

in many other cases. Implied-----

Mr. Ryan. You say, in specific, from the air resources board?

* Mr. Peevey. Specifically, what you already alluded to—I think, you 

have in your files letters from various members of the air resources 

board—the vice chairman to Dianne Feinstein, back in February. And, 

then, a letter from the head of the planning division, Mr. Lockett,

* later in this year. There is a veiled thre at in the latter case; in the 

former case, a rather clean threat, it seems to me, that the State would 

change this plan, if you don’t do X. And X is land-use controls.

Some people love land-use controls. They'll seek them out anywhere. 

But, beyond the coercive element, we’ve all participated in the process and we feel a certain sense of protection toward the plan.

The. fact is. Chairman Ryan, that this plan was developed—although 

not everybody was enthusiastic about all aspects of it—by a fairly 

broad range of interests. I have to applaud ABAC for the creation of 

the environmental management task force 2 years ago and the broad 

range of interest tha t was represented there: Labor, business, senior 

citizens, the minority community, the housing groups, environmentalists, and so forth, as well as city and county officials.
And, unde r the leadership of Supervisor Feinstein, they worked long 

and hard. And, I think, all of us take a certain amount of pride— 

maybe, not grea t pride, but, at least, some pride—in the shaping of 

tha t document. And, we think it ’s a workable document.

From my own perspective, and I can’t speak for all others—I am 

sure there are many who would be most happy without any plan 

whatsoever. From our perspective, as an organization, we believe in 

making environmental improvements. We believe in environmental 

progress. We have been staunch supporters of a whole series of 

environmental issues in this State—most recently, propositions 2 and 

3 in the June ballot.

We believe, in the case of the Clean A ir Act last year—and we had 

discussions with Congressman Paul Rogers in this regard—too much 

of the burden for the attainment of air quality in this country was 

placed on sources other than the automobile industry. And, we were 

up front about saying that. We’ve supported the California waiver on 

standards on auto-caused pollution. From our perspective I think that 

there are significant eleme’nts in this plan tha t are beneficial and 

desirable for the area.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you very much, Mr. Peevey. I t grows late. I could 

ask a few questions. But, I am anxious to get the rest of these witnesses 

heard.

If you'll be seated, and give the reporter your full name, and identify 

your organization.

[Witness sworn.]

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY D. GABE, STAFF SCIENTIST, CITIZENS 

FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Gabe. We'd like to thank Chairman Ryan for the opportunity 

to testify before this committee.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) with $4.3 million to 

develop an environmental management plan to insure that the bay 

area would meet the 1982 deadline for compliance with Federal air 

standards to protect human health. It is im portant to remember that 

the 1982 deadline already represents a 5-year extension from the Clean 

Air Act’s original deadlines of 1977.

In addition to coming up with an air quality maintenance plan, 

ABAG was directed to address problems of water pollution, and 

resources, and solid waste.

In Jan uary 1978, AB AG's environmental management plan was 

made available for public comment. I t has been prepared by ABAG’s 

staff in conjunction with the staffs of several Federal and State 

agencies.

The plan, in its original form, was one tha t Citizens for a Better 

Environment and other bay area organizations strongly supported.

We did file some formal comments requesting some amendments 

that we thought would strengthen the plan, because it had neglected 

significant issues in the areas of energy policy, sulfur dioxide, pretreatment of industrial toxic wastes, and the problem of hazardous 

wastes in general.

Our proposed amendments were submitted to ABAG on February 8.
and are attached here as exhibit 1 to this testimony—CBE-7831: 

ABAG environmental management plan, February 8, 1978.

Together with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the League 

of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, the Bay Area Lung Association, and 

People for Open Space, we also filed some additional comments and 

proposed amendments to the air plan. We attended every ABAG 

environmental management task force meeting that was held, and 

also attended additional nonofficial meetings.

Thus, we gave a lot of time and effort to particip ate in the process 

of review of the original plan.

In return, we got nothing. ABAG never replied to our proposed 

amendments, never told us why they had not been incorporated into 

the plan, and generally gave us the fast shuffle.

Instead, the ABAG officials carved into the special interest groups, 

such as the Bay Area Council, and the Council for Environmental 

and Economic Balance, whose scare tactics about loss of jobs and 

economic disaster in the bay area carried the day. As exhibit 2, we 

reproduce a typical Bay Area Council propaganda flier.

As it became increasingly obvious tha t the environmental community 

in the bay area was being drowned out by the special interest group, 

we drafted a memorandum to the executive board of ABAG just prio r 

to their vote on April 29. In tha t memorandum, which is attached 

hereto as exhibit 3, we warned tha t unless ABAG restored the air 

quality maintenance plan sections that had been removed from the 

original plan, there could be Federal sanctions that would involve 

penalties to the bay area of up to $130 million a year. They could 

also limit the growth of new industries indefinitely.

Our analysis was confirmed in a legal memorandum released by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the next day, which stated 

that legal sanctions could be imposed if the plan were not approved.

The California Air Resources Board also warned the executive 

board of ABAG, prior to its Ap ril 20 vote, th at not enough ha d been 

done in terms of transportation control planning to qualify the bay 

area for an additional 5-year extension beyond 1982.

Thus the ABAG plan is shooting for a 1987 compliance date tha t 

they may not be legally entitled to.

Yet there was no serious discussion of these issues at the April 20 

ABAG executive board meeting, and the air sections of the original 

plan were deleted and relegated to a continuing planning process.

We believe tha t these actions by local politicians represent both a 

failure of nerve and also, in the case of a few persons, an arrogance 

tha t “nobody in Washington is going to tell us what to do.” Yet by 

failing to enact a workable air quality maintenance plan, ABAG has 

insured that such a plan will have to be drafted by the California Air 

Resources Board, or possibly even the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, if the ARB fails to come up with an acceptable plan by 

Jan uar y 1,1979.

We found out in late April tha t ARB plans to go into the closet 

until after the November election, which means th at public participation will be so minimal as to be a charade. We immediately wrote the 

chairman of the ARB, exhibit 4, pointing out that proper solutions 

to the bay area’s air quality problems must necessarily involve a high 

degree ot public particip ation at the local level.
78

Th e ai r plan will ultim ate ly affect no t only the qu ality of the ai r 

in the bay are a, bu t also the modes of t ra ns po rtatio n and the degree 

of ind us trial grow th. I t will become a doc ument th at will h ave a majo r 

effect on p eop le’s lives, a nd thus deserves th e w idest possible discussion 

by mem bers o f the public rath er than being decide d behin d closed doors 

and the n given sh ort sh ri ft i n a few he arings only weeks before submission to the Fe de ral E PS.

Unf or tuna tely, t he letter we r eceived back fro m the AR B answered 

none of our specific questions, mad e o nly the v agu est o f prom ises, and 

gen era lly was a pa radigm exam ple of b ureauc ratic lateral arabesq uing.

Now, the Cal ifo rn ia Senate has passe d S. 2167, which forbi ds the 

AR B to p ut an ythi ng into th e a ir qu ality plan t hat was not specifically 

appro ved by AB AG . Whil e the senate’s action is cle arly illegal and 

in definance of th e U.S . Congress, it m ay give t he AR B the excuse to 

do no thing and dump the who le pro ble m int o the lap of the U.S . 

En vironm en tal Pr ote ction Agen cy.

Th us, wha t star ted ou t as a unique, an d br ill ia ntly conceived, attem pt at lo cal pla nning , and res ult ed in a very good o rig inal p lan , h as 

fallen pre y to a com binatio n of c owa rdic e, ava rice , and arr ogance on 

the par t of local officials.

We believe in local planning , because we th in k local agencies are 

best suited to det erm ine the needs of all the inter est gro ups in th eir 

area. Bu t, th e AB AG experience leaves us with some question as to 

whether, in pra ctice, local politici ans are wi lling to stan d up to wellfun ded special interest grou ps.

We do no t believe th at the ai r qu ality ma intenance plan th at has 

eme rged fro m AB AG will result in com pliance wi th the na tio na l ai r 

qu ali ty stand ards.

Th e plan dep ends hea vily on the Liverm ore reg ion al ai r qu ali ty 

model [L ir aq l, in order to gain estimate s o f fu tu re a ir qu ality a nd th e 

red uct ion s in po llu tant emissio ns th at w ould be needed to m eet Fe de ral 

ai r qu ali ty sta nd ards. Li raq is repu tedly the most sophistica ted ap ­

pro ach to air mo deling ye t develop ed. Nevertheless, whe n its inhe rent 

inac curacies a re c oupled wi th those o f th e em ission es timates th at serve 

as a po rtion of its da ta base, it c an only give a bes t guess as to wh at 

red uct ion s will be needed to achieve Fe de ral clean ai r sta nd ards. Offi­ cials at the bay are a pollu tio n con trol di strict sta te th at the Liraq 

estimates fo r allowab le emissions in 1985 con tain an un ce rta inty of 

plu s or min us 50 percent.

Despite th is massive er ro r band, th e figures th at AB AG used were 

the absolute min imu m ones. Th eir pl an ni ng process assumed th at t he 

estimates were ind icative of the wo rst possible case in 1985, while 

igno rin g that they actua lly repres ented th e best possible case, and t hat 

po llu tant con cen trations in 1985 will be much hi gh er th an they are 

predict ing.

Th ey allow for erro r only in one dir ectio n—in the dir ection th at 

allows the m to rel ax the req uir em ents fo r emission red uction. Th ey 

nev er directl y add ressed the very rea l question of wh at might hav e 

to be done i f we find ou t th at cu rre ntly pla nned effo rts are not sufficient. 

Inste ad , they r elegat ed such questions to the vagaries of a conti nu ing 

pl an ni ng process.

The ir a tti tu de is th at we sho uld delay such consideration s un til we 

are abs olutely certai n th at they are necessary.
79

CBE believes that by that time it will be too late.

One additional example: ABAG assumed that population growth in

the bay area would be accompanied by an increase in the number of 

automobiles at the current rate of slightly more than 2 cars per family. 

Such an assumption betray’s ABAG’s lack of commitment to developing an adequate mass transit system in the bay area, that would reduce 

the need for automobiles for commuting. The present transportation 

plans are no plans at all—they are empty promises with no provisions 

for implementation.

In light of the recent fare increases announced by the San Francisco 

Muni and AC Transit, necessitated by proposition 13, ABA G’s transportation plans are totally inadequate to deal with the problem of 

regional transportation and offer no hope for meeting the mandates 

of the Clean Air Act.

Lest it seem tha t we are totally opposed to the ABAG environmental 

management plan, let us assure you that we do support the parts of the 

plan tha t address solid wastes, and water pollution. The water pollution sections could have been made stronger, had our amendments 

been adopted, but we think, generally, tha t the plan is adequate and 

we support it.

As to the air quality management plan, however, we see little 

prospect of an acceptable plan emerging. This means th at on July 1, 

1979, we will file suit in Federal court against Douglas Costle, Paul 

DeFalco, Tom Quinn, and their respective agencies, for failure to 

comply with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.

Once again, it will have to be the Federal judiciary tha t is the 

branch of Government that dees what the others have failed to do.

Our bottom line is t ha t we do not think tha t local decisionmakers 

should turn their backs on the ir own planners, yet tha t is precisely 

what the ABAG experience has turned out to be.

That ends the end of my written statement. We’d appreciate a copy 

of the transcrip t for editing before publication.

And I ’d be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Ryan. The transcript of this hearing?

Mr. Gabe. The transcrip t of our comments.

Mr. Cornish. Yes. That’s part of the rule.

Mr. Ryan. Yes. We usually do that anyway.

Mr. Gabe. OK.

Mr. Ryan. Well, I think your statement is extremely complete, and 

very definitive. I haven’t had a chance to look at the attachments 

thereto. But we will. The staff and I will both examine them. And, 

just—I thin k in view of the time, we will than k you for your very 

succinct and forth right comment. It was very well done.

Mr. Gabe. Than k you.

Mr. Ryan. One question from Mr. Cunningham.

Mr. Cunningham. We’ve had planners; we’ve had supervisors; 

what’s a staff scientist ?

Mr. Gabe. W ould you like to know my train ing? Is that the---- -

Mr. Cunningham. Yes. I ’d just as soon know what your credentials 

are. It proves, I think, extra credibility.

Mr. Gabe. I have a bachelor of science degree from the University of 

Minnesota in biology, a masters degree in biology from Stanford 

University.
80

Mr. Cunningham. But, you’re very critical—very-----

Mr. Gabe. It ’s a hard report.

Mr. Cunningham. I’m just wondering why it’s tha t hard. I t looks— 

while the plan doesn’t look perfect, it does look like a lot of people 

have tried very hard to resolve some problems.

Mr. Gabe. Well, I would agree tha t a lot of people have tried very 

hard. The problems tha t they resolved are different, depending upon 

your point of view. As I stated, we felt th at the plan t ha t came out of 

the plannin g process, the original d raft plan, was a very adequate and 

complete plan. However, th rough the course of it’s approval, it was 

totally wiped out, we feel, in the area of air quality. And-----

Mr. Cunningham. But you don’t feel tha t it still complies with the 

intent of the law ?

Mr. Gabe. I don’t think that it’s going to meet the emission reductions needed to allow for acceptable levels of air quality in this area, 

as required by the Clean Air A ct of 1977.

Mr. Cunningham. Do I gather that you are not content to wait for 

tha t determination, but rather to force judicial ruling on it?

Mr. Gabe. Well, the point in time when we filed our suit, will be 

afte r the EPA ’s decision.

Mr. Cunningham. Well, if EPA-----

Mr. Gabe. And, if the E PA decides that it is not an acceptable plan, 

then they concur with our estimation, and there won’t be a suit.

Mr. Cunningham. But, if they do concur tha t it is an acceptable 

plan, then you are going to file suit ?

Mr. Gabe. Yes, we will.

Mr. Cunningham. Well, don’t you feel that that kind of breaks 

down the legislative process ? W hy would you not be content to accept 

an authorized finding from an agency charged with implementing the 

law ? Why would you feel it necessary to go to court?

Mr. Gabe. Well, if their opinion differs from ours, that is certainly 

our recourse. And we feel that our opinion is based on the observation 

of th e process as it has existed, and the assumptions that were made 

by the planners and the elected officials during its acceptance. We feel 

tha t the plan will not allow the area to meet Federal air quality standards. And, if so, it is clearly an illegal plan.

Mr. Cunningham. Do you feel th at your suit is constructive to the 

public’s best interest ?

Mr. Gabe. I think the public’s best interest is clean a ir in this area. 

And if there is not an acceptable plan, this area will not have clean 

air.

Mr. Cunningham. You don’t feel that the elected representatives of 

the people, along with the delegated representatives through existing 

agencies, are adequate to make tha t determination?

Mr. Gabe. Well, as I would like to reiterate, what we’ve seen so far 

is that the special interest groups representing labor and business have 

had the ir way with ABAG to this point. And, the plan, as it now 

stands, is not acceptable to meet air quality standards.

I ’d just as soon go through the process at this time, and have that 

determined, and we can look and see what happens. I don’t want to be 

in the position in 1987, of having to say : I told you so.

Mr. R yan. Thank you, very much, Mr. Gabe.

[Mr. Gabe’s prepared statement with attachments, follows:]
81

Prepared Statement of J effrey D. Gabe, Staff Scie ntist, Citiz ens for a

Better E nvironment

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] provided the Associa tion of 

Bay Area Governments [ABAG] with $4.3 m illio n to develop an Environmental 

Management Plan to ensure th at the Bay Area would meet the 1982 deadline 

fo r compliance with Federal a ir standards to prot ec t human he alth. ( I t is 

important to remember th at the 1982 deadline already represents a 5-year 

extension from the Clean A ir A ct's origin al deadlines of 1977).

In ad di tio n to coming up with a Bay Area A ir Qua lity Maintenance Plan,

ABAG was directed to address problems of water p o llu tio n , water resources, 

and solid waste.

In January, 1978, ABAG's Environmental Management Plan was made av ailable 

fo r pu blic comment. I t had been prepared by ABAG s ta ff in conju nction with 

the s ta ff s of several Federal and State agencies.

The EMP plan in it s origin al form was one th at Citize ns fo r a Be tte r 

Environment and othe r Bay Area orga nizatio ns st ro ng ly supported.

CBE did f ile some formal comments req uesting some amendments th at we thought 

would strengthen the plan , because i t had neglected s ig n ific a n t issues in 

the areas of energy po licy, s u lfu r diox ide, pretreatm ent of in dustr ia l to xic 

dis cha rges, and the problem of hazardous wastes in general.

Our proposed amendments were submitted to ABAG on February 8t h, and are 

attached to th is testimony as E xhib it 1 (See CBE-7831: ABAG Environmental 

Management Plan, February 8, 1978).

*We are gr ate fu l to Chairman Leo J. Ryan fo r his in v it a ti o n to te s tif y 

before the Subcommittee.

CBE is a na tiona l n o t-fo r-p ro fit tax-exempt orga nizatio n conducting 

research and li tig a tio n in the pu blic in te re st. Our four princip al 

areas of a c ti v it ie s are a ir p o llu ti o n , water p o llu tio n , to xic substances 

contr ol, and energy polic y.

We are supported by small donations from the public , and curr ently have 

over 30,000 members.
82

Together with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the League of 

Women Voters, the Sierra Club, the Bay Area Lung As socia tions, and 

People For Open Space, we fil e d some addi tio na l comments and proposed 

amendments on the a ir pla n. We attended every ABAG Environmental 

Management Task Force meeting th at was held, and also attended 

ad ditio na l non-o ffic ia l meetings.

Thus, we gave a lo t of time and e ffo rt to partic ip ate in the process 

of review of the origin al plan.

In re tu rn , we got nothing. ABAG never re plie d to our proposed amendments, 

never to ld us why they had not been inc orp ora ted in to the plan , and 

ge ne rally gave us the fa st shuffle .

Ins tead, the ABAG o ffic ia ls caved Jn to the spe cial in te re st groups such 

as the Bay Area Council and the Council For Environmental and Economic 

Balance, whose scare ta ctics about los s of jobs and economic di sa st er in 

the Bay Area ca rried the day. (As E xhib it 2, we reproduce a ty pic al Bay 

Area Council propaganda f lie r ) .

As i t became increa sing ly obvious th at the environmental community in 

the Bay Area was being drowned out by the spe cial in te re st groups, we 

drafted a memorandum to the Executive Board of ABAG ju s t p ri o r to th e ir 

vote on A pril 20th. In th at memorandum, which is attached hereto as 

Exh ib it 3, we warned th at unless ABAG res tored the A ir Qua lity Maintenance 

Plan sections th at had been removed from the origin al pla n, the re could be 

Federal sanctions th at would involve pe na lties to the Bay Area of up to 

$130 m illio n a year. They could also li m it the growth of new in du stries 

in d e fi n it e ly .

Our an alysis was confirmed in a lega l memorandum released by the U.S. 

Environmental Pr otection Agency the next day, which sta ted th at leg al 

san ctions could be imposed i f the plan were not approved.

The C alif orn ia A ir Resources Board als o warned the Executive Board of 

ABAG, p rio r to it s April 20th vote, th at not enough had been done in terms 

of tran sp or ta tio n co ntrol plan ning to qu alify the Bay Area fo r an ad ditio na l 

5-year extens ion beyond 1982.

Thus the ABAG plan is shootin g fo r a 1987 compliance date th at they may 

not be le g a lly en title d to .

Yet there was no serious discus sion o f these issues at the A pril 20th 

ABAG Executive Board Meeting, and the a ir sections of the ori gin al plan 

were deleted and relegated to a "c on tin uing plan ning pro ces s."
83

We believe th at these ac tio ns by loca l p o liti c ia n s represent both a 

fa ilu re of nerve and al so , in the case of a few persons, an arrogance 

th at "nobody in Washington is going to te ll us what to do ." Yet by 

fa il in g to enact a workable Bay Area A ir Qua lity Maintenance Plan,

ABAG has ensured th at such a plan w il l have to be drafte d by the 

C alif orn ia A ir Resources Board, or po ssibly even the U.S. Environmental 

Protec tion Agency i f the ARB fa il s to come up with an acceptab le plan 

by January 1, 1979.

We found out in la te A pril th at ARB plans to "go in to the close t u n ti l 

a ft e r the November e le ctio n ", which means th at pu blic pa rt ic ip ation w il l 

be so minimal as to be a charade. We immediately wrote to the Chairman 

of the ARB (E xhib it 4), po in tin g out th at proper so lutio ns to the Bay 

Area's a ir qu ality problems must ne ce ss arily inv olv e a high degree of 

pu blic pa rt ic ip ation at the loca l le vel.

The a ir plan w il l ultim ate ly a ff e ct not on ly the qu ality of the a ir in 

the Bay Area, but also the modes of tran sp or ta tio n and the degree of 

growth of in dustry. I t w il l become a document th at w il l have a major 

eff ect on people's liv e s , and thus deserves the widest possible discussion 

by members of the pu blic ra th er than being decided behind closed doors and 

then give n.sh ort s h r ift in a few hearings on ly weeks before submission to 

the Federal EPA.

Un fortu na tely, the le tte r we rece ived back from the ARB answered none of 

our specific questions, made on ly the vaguest of promises, and ge ne rally 

was a paradigm example o f bu reaucratic la te ra l arabesquing.

Now the C alif orn ia Senate has passed S.B. 2167, which fo rb ids the ARB to 

put anything in to the a ir qu ality plan th at was not s p e c if ic a lly approved 

by ABAG. While the Senate's ac tio n is cle arly il le g a l and in defiance of 

the United States Congress, i t may give the ARB the excuse to do nothing 

and dump the whole problem in to the lap of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency.

Thus what star te d out as a unique and b r ill ia n tly conceived attempt at loca l 

plannin g, and resu lte d in a very good origin al plan , has fa lle n prey to a 

combination of cowardice, avarice and arrogance on the pa rt o f loca l o ffic ia ls

We be lieve in loca l plan nin g, because we th in k loca l agencies are best 

suite d to determine the needs of a ll the in te re st groups in the area.

But the ABAG experience leaves us with some question as to whether in 

pra ctice, loca l p o liti c ia n s are w il li n g to stand up to we ll-funded special 

in te re st groups.

We do not be lie ve th at the A ir Qua lity Maintenance Plan th at has emerged 

from ABAG w il l re su lt in compliance with na tio na l a ir qu ality standards.
84

The plan depends he av ily on the Livermore Regional A ir Qua lity Model (LIRAQ) 

in ord er to gain estimates of fu tu re a ir qu ality and the red uctions in 

pollu ta nt emissions th at would be needed to meet Federal a ir quality 

standard s. LIRAQ is reputedly the most soph istic ated approach to a ir 

modelling ye t developed. Nevertheless, when it s inherent inaccu racies 

are coupled with those of the emission estimates th at serve as a po rtion 

of it s data base, i t can only give a "best guess" as to what red uctions 

w il l be needed to achieve Federal'clea n a ir standard s. O ff ic ia ls at the 

Bay Area A ir Pollu tio n Control D is tr ic t stat e th at the LIRAQ estimates 

fo r allow able emissions in 1985 contain an un ce rta inty of + 50%.

Despite th is massive er ro r band, the figu re s th at ABA6 used were the 

absolute minimum ones. Th eir planning process assumed th at the estimates 

were in dic ative of the worst possible case in 1985, wh ile igno rin g the 

p o s s ib ilit y th at they actu ally represented the best possible case, and 

th at polluta nt con centrations in 1985 w il l be much higher than they are 

pre dic ting.

They allow fo r err or only in one direction -- in the direction th at allows 

them to relax the requirements fo r emission redu ction. They never d ir e c tl y 

addressed the very rea l question of what might have to be done i f we find 

out th at curr ently planned e ff o rt s are not s u ff ic ie n t. Ins tead, they 

relegated such questions to the vagarie s of the continu ing planning process.

Their att itud e is th at we should dela y such conside ration s u n ti l we are 

ab so lutely ce rtai n th at they are necessary.

CBE believes th at by th at time i t w il l be too la te .

One ad ditio na l example: ABAG assumed th at population growth in the Bay Area 

would be accompanied by an increase in the number of automobiles at the 

cu rre nt rate of s li g h tl y more than two cars per fa m ily . Such an assumption 

be tra y's ABAG's lac k of commitment to developing an adequate mass tr a n s it 

system in the Bay Area th at would reduce the need fo r automobiles fo r 

commuting. The present tran sp or ta tio n plans are no plans at a ll — they 

are empty promises with no prov ision s fo r implementation.

In li g h t o f recent fare increases announced by the San Francisco Muni and 

AC T ra nsit, necessitated by Pr op ositio n 13, ABAG's tran sp or ta tio n plans are 

to ta ll y inadequate to deal with the problem of reg ional tran sp or ta tio n and 

o ff e r no hope fo r meeting the mandates o f the Clean A ir Act.

Lest i t seem th at we are to ta ll y opposed to the ABAG Environmental Management 

Plan, le t us assure you th at we do support the parts of the plan th at address 

solid wastes, and water p o llu tion . The water pollu tio ns sections could have 

been made stronger had our amendments been adopted, but we th in k ge ne rally 

th at the plan is adequate and we sup port i t .
As to the A ir Qua lity Management Plan, however, we see l i t t l e prospect 

of an acceptable plan emerging. This means th at on July 1, 1979, we w il l 

f ile s u it in Federal Court again st Douglas Co stle, Paul DeFalco, Tom Quinn 

and th e ir resp ective agencies fo r fa ilu re to comply with the Clean A ir Act 

Amendments of 1977.

Once aga in, i t w il l have to be the Federal ju d ic ia ry th at is the branch of 

government th at does what the others have fa ile d to do. •

Our bottom lin e is th at we do not th in k th at loca l decision-m akers should 

turn th e ir backs on th e ir own planners , ye t th at is prec isely what the 

ABAG experience has turned out to be .*

* As a fi n a l e x h ib it , we are subm itting an a rti c le on pages 6-8 of the 

July issue of our monthly ne wslet te r, the CBE Environmental Review; i t 

is e n title d "ABAG and Local C ontrol," and addresses the problem of loca l 

co ntrol of the planning process in more general terms.
CB E-7831

86

E X H IB IT I

ABAG

ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Fe brua ry 19 78
Comments Filed 

8 February 1978 

on Behalf of

CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT 

by

DR. WAYNE WILLIAM S 

Staff Scientist 

and

JAMES S. CANNON 

Research Dire ctor 

on the

ABAG ENVIRONME NTAL MANAG EMENT PLA N

This review of the Association of Bay Area Government's Dra ft Environ mental 

Management Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area has as its prima ry purpose 

helping to make a good document be tte r. Citizens fo r a Better Environment 

commends the Enviro nmental Management Task Force for its dilige nt ef fo rts over 

the past year and a ha lf and the production of a document of such depth and scope 

as the 550-page Plan under review today.

CBE takes a constru ctive view of the Plan, and the suggestions put forwa rd here 

are designed to aid ABAG in preparing the best possible fin al proposal. We propose 

the follow ing 4 amendments in the areas of air and wate r po llution control and solid 

waste management.

AMENDMENTS

1 - ABAG should endorse the speedy im ple me nta tion of s tr ic t pre ­

trea tm en t standards fo r industrial contributors to municipal 

wastewater systems in order to prevent the discharge of toxic 

substances into the Bay Area's waterways.

2 - ABAG should propose the establishment of a pe rm it program

to mo nitor and regulate the generation as w ell as the disposal 

of hazardous solid wastes by Bay Area indu stries .*

3 - ABAG should discourage the prolife ra tio n of highly po lluting

industries and ind ustrial consumption of high sulfur fuels as 

pa rt of its strate gy to achieve all fed era l air po llution 

standards.

4 - ABAG should encourage the development and util izatio n of

non-p olluting energy resources in the Bay region.

♦By "solid waste," we also mean those liguid hazardous wastes which 

must be tran sported to approved chemical waste disposal sites.
I

88

Each of the proposed amendments refle cts one general observation made by CBE: 

we believe that the Plan does not pay su fficien t attention to the need fo r tight 

co ntrol over pollution generated fro m local industry, pa rticu larly toxic substance 

po llution. The Plan frequently acknowledges the need to lim it ind ustrial po llution 

and to reduce toxic substance discharges, but its recommended policies and actions 

generally adopt a "w ait and see" attitud e, rather than one which meets the 

problems straight on. We hope that ABAG w ill recognize this shortcoming and 

expand the sections of its Plan relevant to ind ustrial pollution issues.

AMENDM ENT 1: IMPLEMENT STRICT PRE-TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR *

INDUSTRIES DISCHARGING INTO MU NIC IPA L SEWAGE 

TREATMENT PLANTS

CBE believes that ABAG should implement this amendment by altering the existin g „

proposed Ac tion 9.3 of the Water Qu ality Management Plan. As it now reads,

Policy 9 intends to "provide fa cili ties needed for ind ustria l tre atmen t and disposal 

and wa ter quality protec tio n." Ac tion 9.3 proposes to achieve this goal by 

expanding existing tre atmen t centers providing "new fa cilitie s fo r pre-tre atmen t of 

industrial wastewaters discharges to mun icipal sewer systems." But "only that 

degree of tre atment necessary to meet mu nic ipa lities discharge requirem ents are 

(sic) recommended at this tim e. "

Reliance on curre nt municipal discharge requiremen ts as the guide fo r

imp lementing pre-tre atmen t standards is insu fficien t and w ill defea t purpose of

Policy 9. The arguments proving this to be true are contained in the Plan its elf.

Page III-2 states that "there is grow ing evidence that suggests that some toxic

ma terials are harming aquatic life ." A supporting paragraph on page III-23 begins:

"There is some evidence suggesting that animal species liv ing in or depending on

the bay area are being adversely affected by toxic materials." This sentence is

follow ed by a lengthy and un settlingly long lis t of such evidence. La ter, ABAG

forecasts that if the present Bay Area Water Qu ality Management Program is

institu ted, "the most serious problems that w ill remain w ill be those that result

fro m the discharges of toxic ma terials to the Bay." (page III-28) Fina lly ABAG

adm its that "removing of addition al toxicants can be accomplished more

ef fe cien tly by selec tive pre-tre atmen t of industria l wastewaters rather than by

increasing levels of tre atmen t at the mun icipal plan t." (page III-30)

Clearly increased control of ind ustrial toxic discharges is a necessary step in

protecting our waterways. But ABAG does not recommend this. It writes instead

that "removal of toxic substances from waste discharges and surface runo ff is o fte n

difficu lt and expensive. In view of this and the lack of comprehensive evidence of

harm, the recommended strate gy is to reduce the discharge of toxic substances •

where this can be done easily and relatively inexpensively." (page III-2)
89

CBE believes that "ease" o f rem ova l is an unacceptable cr iteria fo r determin ing the 

necessary degree of co ntrol of toxic substances into our waterways. ABAG should 

recognize that with ou t requirin g str ic t pre-tre atmen t standards of ind ustrial 

contributors to municipal wastewater plants, it w ill never be able to fu lf il l one of 

its guiding prin ciples of the Federal Water Po llution Co ntrol Act, namely that "the 

discharge of toxic pollutan ts in toxic amounts should be proh ibited." Although 

adequate pre-tre atmen t standards do not yet exist, the fed era l government w ill be 

proposing standards soon.

The Plan should amend Action 9.3 to call fo r a speedy rev iew of the proposed

federal standards when they are issued in ea rly 1978. It should endorse th eir

imme dia te imple me nta tion if they are deemed stric te r than existing standards.

The "A ction" should sp ec ifica lly instruct the st aff of the San Francisco Bay Delta

Research Program to pay pa rti cu lar attention to toxic substance discharges fro m

ind ustry and to propose pre-tre atmen t standards if it feels that the fed eral

standards are too weak.

AMENDMENT 2: ESTABLISH A PERMIT PROGRAM TO MONITOR AND

REGULATE INDUSTRIAL GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS 

SOLID WASTES

Policy 15 of the Solid Waste Management Plan states that "Regulations should 

ensure safe and proper handling of hazardous wastes." ABAG then lists seven 

"A ctions " designed to implement this policy. All of the "A ctions," however, 

mo nitor or regulate the ac tiv ities of the industry which disposes of hazardous 

wastes, while none seek to co ntrol the industries which generate them.

ABAG discloses on page V-13 that "A hindrance to suggesting solutions to the 

problems (of hazardous waste disposal) is lack of inform ation about the magnitude 

of the problem . . . (since) reco rds account for only those hazardous wastes that are 

leg ally transported and disposed of. The to ta l amounts gene rated are cu rre ntly 

unknown." Later it acknowledges that "w ith ou t accurate data about the quantities 

and types of wastes being generated, it would be very d ifficu lt to develop a more i 

comprehensive or long range management system." (page V-31) Instead of making 

the obvious connection and callin g fo r the institu tio n of a pe rm it system by which 

to regulate industries which generate hazardous substances as a necessary step 

toward a long range, comprehensive solid waste management, ABAG retre ats. It 

write s, "th is option w ill have to be considered in the continu ing planning process as 

additional inform ation w ill become available through sta te and federal fun ding." 

(V-31)

CBE does not belie ve that the Bay Area can afford to make the reg ula tion of 

hazardous wastes, including some of the most poisonous substances ever create d, 

await future funding fro m outside sources.
90

CBE proposes that ABAC add another "A ction" under Policy 15, creating a program

to catalogue all hazardous wastes gene rated by industry according to the type,

amount, and location of origin. ABAG should then implement a pe rm it system

whereby each company responsible for creating hazardous wastes must dem onstrate

that it has arranged fo r proper disposal of them before receiving an operating license.

AMENDMENT 3: DISCOURAGE THE PRO LIFERA TION OF POLLUTING

INDUSTRIES AND USE OF HIGH-SULFUR FUELS •

A major purpose of the Environ mental Management Plan is to assure residents of

the Bay Area that the ambient air quality in the foreseeable future w ill meet all

federal air qu ality standards deemed necessary to protec t human health and

welfare. CBE commends ABAG fo r its strides toward the development of an air

quality plan which, if properly enforced, w ill substantially clean up our air and

probably at ta in the fed eral air qu ality standard fo r oxidants. We believe, however,

that ABAG has ignored its responsibility to provide plans fo r the attainmen t of

fed eral standards for other major air pollutan ts, especially sulfu r dioxide.

The ABAG A ir Qu ality Maintenance Plan contains no recommendations for the

control of sulfur dioxide. ABAG's projection s foreca st a 297% increase in SO2

fro m fuel combustion, a 227% increase in SO2 fro m petrole um refin ing, and a 2%

SO2 increase fro m other ind ustrial sources during the 22-year planning period.

Though the Bay Area's air now generally meets the fed eral SO2 standard, the Plan

notes that "Ambien t sulfur dioxide levels w ill increase substantially by 1985."

(page VI-164) In view of the severe environ mental and health effects which can be

caused by SO2, this surely means that our air w ill be decidedly more toxic in 1985

than it is now. ABAG also warns that unless the new Califo rn ia SO2 standard is

modified, th at standard w ill probably be violate d in the future.

Sulfur dioxide is a dangerous air p ollutant, and CBE does not think it acceptable for

ABAG to acknowledge, unless checked, an overall doubling of SO2 discharges in the

Bay by 1985. Ra the r, ABAG should develop a plan to minim ize the increase.

SO2 is a severe irrita nt to the eyes and lungs and has been implicated in the genesis

and development of numerous fa ta l diseases, in cluding emphysema and lung cancer.

Furtherm ore , SO2 acts synergistically with oth er air pollutants, most notably

oxidants, to cause environmental impacts fa r worse than each po llu tant acting

independently. SO2

 rea cting with ozone has been demonstrated to low er disease

thresholds fo r a large number of importa nt crop plants.

Despite the obvious importance of keeping sulfu r dioxide levels in the Bay Area as

low as possible, ABAG does not include SO2 control in its air qu ality control plan.
91

CBE belie ves that Section 1 of the Air Quality Maintenance Recommendations

dealing with Stationary Source Control should include a new general policy "to minimize sulfur dioxide emissions in the Bay Area." Proposed actions under this policy should include steps to reduce the use of high sulfur fue ls by industry and electric utilities in the Bay Area. Furthermore, ABAC should demand the installation of best available control technology for SO2 on new and existing SO2 emission sources. Finally, it would propose a program to review plans fo r new and modified industrial fac ilitie s with a goal of minim izing or preventin g any overall

increase in SO2 discharges to the Bay Area.

AMENDM ENT 4: ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT AND UT ILIZATIO N

OF NON-POLLUT ING ENERGY SOURCES

ABAG virtua lly ignores the role of Bay Area energy use in cre ating and poten tia lly solving our air po llution problems. The use of hig h-sulfur fuels w ill place a sig nifica nt strain on air qu ality. In addition, dwindling supplies of relativ ely clean- buming natural gas, the state government policy against nuc lear power and the large cit izen support for that po licy, all cre ate pressure for the increased use of alternative, clean fuels. ABAG makes the assumption that sulfur-c ontaining fuels - mainly coal and Alaskan oil - w ill be used much more extensively in the area in the 

next twen ty years and does not propose any energy strategies to prevent this.

The ABAG plan, by its silence on energy issues, promotes the use of polluting fuels .instead of discouraging their use. This is contrary to the policy of the Califo rn ia 

Energy Commission to promote renewable resource energy technologies and energy 

conservation.

Recent analyses performed by the Energy Resources Group at the Un ive rsity of 

Califo rn ia and the Lawrence Berkele y Laboratory reveal that Califo rnia can 

replace most of the sulfur-c ontaining fuels that it uses.

CBE believes that a new section should be added to the Air Quality Maintenance Plan proposing policies and action to guide Bay Area energy consumption patterns in a direction which would m inimize future air pollution. For example, many of the buildings in the Bay Area can be solar-heated. Municipal trash-to-energy conversion system s could be used as a back-up for exte nded cloudy periods when the storage capa city of the solar heating system s might be exceede d. Industrial uses of these alte rnative energy resources are also feasible, and use of cogeneration would reduce tota l fuel consumption. Use of fluidized bed combustion sys tem s would increase the conversion eff ici ency for many differ ent type s of fuels

and would probably reduce total emissions o f sulfur dioxide.
92

REFERENCES

Association of Bay Area Governments Environ mental Management Task 

Force, D ra ft Environmental Management Plan for the San Francisco Bay

Region, Vol. 1 (Berkeley. CA : December 1977k 55P pp.

M. Christensen, et al., Distributed Energy Systems in Ca lifo rnia's Future; A 

Prelimina ry Report (LBL-6831) (Berkeley, CA : Lawrence Berkeley

Laboratory , Unive rsity of Califo rnia, September 1977), Vol. 1, 233 pp., Vol. 

2, 371 pp. For a syno ptic review of this repo rt, see: David Dinsmore 

Comey, "Can Ca lifornia Be Made Energy Se lf-Su fficie nt?" CBE 

Environmental Review, January 1978, pp. 3-6. For a furthe r discussion of 

such technologies, see: Amory B. Lovips, "Energy Strategy: The Road Not 

Taken?" CBE Environ mental Review, November 1976 and December 1976; 

a n d Am ory B. Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace 

(Cambridge, MA: Balling er Publishing Company, 1977), 231 pp.
93

EXHIBIT 2 BAY

AR EA

COU NCIL

April 19, 1978

TO ALL MEMBERS, ABAG EXECUTIVE BOARD:

The Bay Area Council has been deeply involved with the EMP process since its 

outset, and has acted as the business community representative on the Environmental Management Task Force. Over the past two years, the Council has channeled a great deal of effort into the Environmental Management Program because 

we saw it as a unique opportunity to deal with environmental issues in a more 

comprehensive manner than was previously possible.

THE COUNCIL SUPPORTS BOTH THE DIRECTION AND THE SUBSTANCE OF EMTF'S RECOMMENDED 

AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT PLAN (with some minor exceptions we are discussing with 

ABAG staff). The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and its proposals for stationary source controls hav e been our greatest concern. We view the EMTFrecommended AQMP as an acceptable and reasonable response to the Federal clean 

air mandate, provided it is augmented with amendments addressing the Plan's 

potential impact on industrial growth. (We understand the Executive Board will 

be considering certain clarifying amendments that do deal with this issue.)

However, we still have some serious doubts whether the region will in fact be 

able to meet the Federal mandate without disruptive economic, social and fiscal 

effects. EMTF has called for Congressional re-examination of the Clean Air Act 

requirements. We urge the ABAG Executive Board to support this recommendation, 

and to question the "zero-risk" philosophy that underlies the Act. Congress 

should attempt to determine whether, realistically, we can reach a state in 

which there is no risk of adverse health effects from air pollution to anyone, 

at any time, in any place, and whether there is an acceptable level of risk that 

is achievable. We understand the Executive Board will be considering adoption 

of EMTF's recommendation, and recommend that it be strengthened by the following 

modification:

Tlie Bay Area Council,

stablishcd in 1945. is

a private, non-profit

organization involved in

research and advocacy

on arenu-idc public

policy issues such as

environmental quality,

economic vitality,

transportation, and

regional planning and

government.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE STAFF

CHA/KM.AN

ARJAY MILLER

D»-an

Graduate School of Business

Stanford University

IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIRMAN

ERNEST C. ARBUCKLE.

Chairman

Wells largo Bank

VICE CHAIRMEN

B. F. BIAGGINI

Chairman

Southern Pacific Company

MYRON l»U BAIN

Chairman & President

Fireman s Fund

Insurance Companies

PETLR E. HAAS

President

Levi Strauss & Co

RICHARD B. MADDEN

President

& Chief Executive Oliicer

Potlatch Corporation

ROBERT B. SHETTERLY

President

The Clorox Company

CHAIRMAN. STEERING

COMMITTEE

WARRI N D. CHINN

Senn* Vxe President

B«xv Allen & 11 am III.. I. Inc

CHAIRMAN'S APPOINTEES

A. W. CLAUSEN

President

Bank ol America. NT & SA

EDMUND W. LITTLEFIELD

Chairman ol the Board

Utah International inc

EUGENE E. TRITI.TIIEN. JR

Director. Retired President

Kaiser Industries Corporation

e x e c iw e director

ANGELO J SIRACUSA

ASSOCIAII DIRECTORS

THOMASO MERIT

GREGORY A MOORE

STAEEASSOCIATE

BRIGITTF STRAUBS

fin: ii.\YAiti:.\<XH’NCii..iNC.. .wHWoiti .n i ka di: < i:m i :h sa n i'ka nc isc.oi miii wisi<wi <>4«r.

35-395 0 - 79 -7
The ABAG Environmental Management Plan is a good faith effort to , 

meet stringent standards for air quality, though it may not be 

possible to attain such standards without significant economic and 

social burdens, and it is the recommendation that a re-examination 

of the philosophy and requirements of the Clean Air Act be conducted 

by Congress to make them reasonable for local governments seeking 

to comply. ,

The proposed AQMP amendments we mentioned earlier would address one of our chief 

concerns about the Plan's potential impacts, namely, that it may be a no-growth 

Plan for industries subject to New Source Review rules. While the Plan polic ies— 

and the Clean Air Act— allow use of provisions other than case-by-case offset 

to permit industrial growth, the Plan projections show such growth as occurring 

only through offsets. However, the Council believes the offset provision may not 

be workable. Offsets will be increasingly difficult to obtain as existing sources 

comply with new controls. Furthermore, industry may not be willing or able to buy 

up sufficient existing emissions to permit new construction. Therefore, our support 

of the Plan is contingent upon approval of AQMP amendments that would provide for 

exploration and consideration of alternatives to the case-by-case offset.

There are several alternatives that should be considered. One approach consistent 

with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 wo uld be to incorporate an emissions 

increment reserved for industrial growth in the region's air quality strategy. We 

recommend that the Executive Board direct ABAG staff to determine, at the earliest 

possible date, whether the region's adopted Plan will meet federal requirements for 

minimum annual incremental reductions toward the 1987 goal for attainment of standards, and whether our air quality strategy will accommodate an industrial growth 

increment.

We understand that EPA is currently conducting a review of the federal ambient 

air standards, and that there is a good likelihood the oxidant standard will be 

revised from .08 to .10 parts per million peak concentration. If so, we may want 

to use this opportunity to accommodate an increment for industrial growth, if the 

region is obtaining sufficient emission reductions to make the required progress 

toward the new standard.

The Council recognizes that even if the AOM P is modified as EMTF recommends, the 

air quality control strategies will carry a sizeable pricetag and will have considerable— but presently unknown— impacts on the region's economy, employment, tax 

base and social climate. Thus, thorough and consistent monitoring of the Plan's 

impacts should ba integral to continuing planning.

We recommend that ABAG explicitly reserve the right to modify its adopted air quality plan if there is a change in th^ Federal air standards or Clean Air Act requirements, or if the Plan's impacts prove to be overly burdensome. (Furthermore, 

if changes in the Federal standards or requirements are proposed before the Continuing Planning Process is formally underway, ABAG staff should be directed to begin draft Plan revisions accordingly.)

Because of our concerns with the consequences of implementing an AQMP a nd with the 

stringent nature of the Federal Clean Air mandate, the Council sees a Continuing 

Planning Process as necessary to provide feedback on how — and whether— the region 

can meet state and federal air quality requirements.
We support ABAG sponsorship of a Continuing Planning Process that includes the 

participation of local officials as well as representatives of interest groups.

In our view, ABAG is the body presently most capable of considering the total 

environmental, economic, social, fiscal and political well-being of the San Francisco Bay region, and EMTF has shown that a n^oad-based participatory process can 

effectively represent diverse interests in the region.

In sum, we recommend that the ABAG Executive Board:

1. adopt the EMTF-recommended version of the Environmental Management Plan, with 

amendments providing for ongoing exploration of alternative techniques and potential 

opportunities to accommodate a reasonable level of industrial growth.

2. endorse and strengthen EMTF's statement calling on Congress to re-examine the

Clean Air Act requirements. _ ■

3. direct staff to begin modifying the region's Plan if changes in the Federal air 

quality standards or requirements are proposed.

4. direct ABAG staff to gauge whether our AQMP will allow us to meet federal requirements for annual incremental reductions toward the 1987 attainment deadline, and 

whether our progress will be sufficient to accommodate a reasonable level of industrial 

grow th.

5. establish a Continuing Planning Process that can monitor Plan impacts, provide

a vehicle for future deliberations on the region's air quality strategy, and provide 

a forum for local-level response and challenge to the mandates of higher levels of 

government. •

While the EMP effort has been controversial, we have viewed it as a very worthwhile 

process. The Council.has appreciated the opportunity to participate, and we look 

forward to involvement in ABAG's ongoing environmental management program.

AJS/dwp

cc: Alternate Representatives
EXHIBIT 3

18 April 1978

MEMO TO: Executive Board Members 

Associa tion of Bay Area Governments

FROM: J e ff Gabe, CBE S ta ff S cie ntist ETTA’ii'EiTmSnT

1. On A pril 20, 1978, the Executive Board of ABAG w il l be deciding the 

fa te of the reg ion al Environmental Management Plan proposed by the ABAG 

Environmental Management Task Force. The Plan is an in te gra l pa rt of the 

Bay Area's fu tu re eff o rt s to achieve environmental q u a lity , and con tain s 

many measures th at we fee l w il l re su lt in a healthie r environment fo r a ll 

Bay Area re side nts.

2. Citize ns fo r a Be tte r Environment [CBE] supports the Water Q ua lity,

Water Supply, and So lid Waste Management measures of the Plan as they now 

exis t. Although we had hoped to incorporate some strong er measures in these 

areas, we are ge ne rally pleased with them and urge you to support them.

3. We urge you to upgrade the A ir Qua lity Maintenance Plan measures by 

re in sta ting eff ective land use and tran sp or ta tio n co ntrols , since in it s 

present form the AQMP provides ne ith er fo r the attainment nor the maintenance of fed eral a ir qu ality stan dards. Recent developments in dica te 

th at the Plan w il l not be able to reduce hydrocarbon emissions to the 

450 tons per day th at is the pro jec ted requirement i f the area is to meet 

the fede ral oxida nt standard. There are three reasons fo r th is :

(a) The C alif orn ia A ir Resources Board [CARB] has indic ated th at

the heavy-duty ve hicle r e tr o fit measures — a v it a l pa rt o f the Plan — 

w il l not be te ch no logica lly or socio lo gic ally fe asib le . As a re su lt, 

the 25 tons per day red uction achieved through th is measure w il l not ' 

be ava ila ble .

(b) There are no funds av ailable fo r implementing tran sp or ta tio n 

measures, since the revenue-generatin g po rtion s of the Plan (increased 

bridge to ll s and parking taxes) were elim inated . Hence the 7 tons per 

day redu ction from these measures is an un re a listic figure .

(c) According to o ffic ia ls at the Bay Area A ir Pollu tio n Control D is tr ic t 

a siz ea ble po rtion of the 64 tons per day red uction due to ap pl icat io n

o f New Source Review and the O ffs et Policy — perhaps up to 50 tons 

per day — is already included in the estimates they developed fo r 

emission reductions due to appl icat io n of Best Av ailable Control 

Technology, as a re sult of th is double accoun ting, the 64 tons per 

day figure is an in flate d one.
97

cnfe ns

p e fc e r

EnyironrnsnT

4. I t is CBE's professio nal opinion th at the ABAG Executive Board is now 

considering an A ir Qua lity Maintenance Plan th at w il l not provide fo r the 

attainment of federal a ir qu ality stan dards. Furthermore, even i f the 

standards were met as of the date an tic ip at ed in the Plan, the elim in at io n 

of land use measures and tran sp or ta tio n co nt ro ls leaves no means of 

ma intaining those stan dards.

5. We feel compelled to po int out th at i f these serious fa ilin g s of the 

AQMP are not correcte d by ABAG, then the CARB w il l have the re sp on sib ility 

of d ra s tic a lly improving the Plan before i t is submitted to the U.S. 

Environmental Pr otec tio n Agency as pa rt o f the State Implementation Plan 

[SIP] req uired to be fil e d on January 1, 1979. Without such improvements, 

the Plan w il l not meet U.S. EPA's requirements fo r an acceptable SIP.

6. I f ABAG fa il s to ac t in anticip ation of CARB's co rrect io ns, then ABAG 

w il l have lo s t loca l co nt ro l over these issues. Those of ABAG's co ns titue nts 

who feel stro ng ly about main tainin g loca l co ntrol ove r reg ional planning 

w il l view CARB's changes as outside in te rfere nce , and th is may re su lt in 

de te rio ra tio n of coopera tive e ff o rt s to solve Bay Area problems, and fu rt her 

delay ge tting clean a ir .

7. I f ABAG fa il s to act, i t runs grave economic risks to the Bay Area.

The U.S. EPA is mandated by the Congress to impose economic san ctions i f 

a SIP is found unacceptable or is delayed. The to ta l losses to the Bay 

Area may inclu de the fo llo w in g:

(a) $170 m illio n in fede ral funding (from 1979-1982) fo r the 

Metropo lita n Tra nsit Commission's Tran sp ortatio n Improvement 

Program; th is money would be lo s t because Section 176(a) of the 

fed eral Clean A ir Act requires th at a ll tra ns po ra tio n funds 

"other than fo r safe ty , mass tr a n s it or tran sp or ta tio n improvements 

related to a ir qu a lity achievement or maintenance" must be withhe ld 

in areas where any na tio na l ambient a ir standard is not met or where 

there is not an acceptable SIP.

(b) $70 m illio n per year (o r more) of funding fo r co ns tru ction of 

fa c il it ie s su bjec t to the Bay Area A ir P ollu tion Control D is tr ic t 

permit process; th is money could be lo s t because Section 113(a)(5) 

grants the U.S. EPA Adm inistra tor the auth ority to pro hib it 

co ns tru ction or m od ifica tio n of any major sta tio nary sources i f 

there is not an acceptable SIP.

(c) $60-110 m illio n in federal gra nts over the next twenty years 

fo r sewage treatm ent th at can be withhe ld by U.S. EPA in sim ilar 

circumstances under the auth ority granted in Section 316 of the 

Clean A ir Act.
98

o

E iw o rs m e rc r

srrer

8. Thus the Bay Area may lose approxima tely $130 m illio n a year in fed era l 

grants and cons tru ction money i f the mandated requirements of the Clear A ir 

Act are not met. I f such losses occur, the pu blic may we ll blame ABAC fo r 

having fa ile d to act to prevent them.

9. Citize ns fo r a Be tte r Environment urges the ABAG Executive Board to 

re in st ate eff ective land use and transportatio n co nt ro ls as pa rt o f the 

A ir Qua lity Maintenance Plan i t approves on A pril 20, 1978.

Re sp ec tfu lly sub mitted,

S ta ff S cie ntist

Citiz en s fo r a Be tte r Environment 

88 F ir s t Street, Suite 600 

San Fra ncisco, CA 94105 

(415) 777-1984
99

EXHIBIT 4,

23 April 1978

»

Tom Quinn, Chairman 

C alif orn ia A ir Resources Board 

1709-11th Stre et

Sacramento, C alifo rn ia 95814

Dear Hr. Quinn:

On April 20th, the Executive Board of the As socia tion of Bay Area 

Governments (ABAG) approved a severely truncated version of it s 

Environmental Management Plan. Those sections th at would have 

co ns tituted the Bay Area Non Attain ment Plan (BANAP) -- to be 

inc orp orated in to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) th at ARB 

must f ile with the U.S. Environmental Pr otec tio n Agency (EPA) by 

January 1, 1979 -- were removed from the A3AG Plan. A re-examination 

of these excised section s was delegated to a "Continuin g Planning 

Committee" whose com position and membership are yet to be determined.

The ARB is ultim ate ly responsible fo r su bm itting an apprcvable SIP to 

the EFA. We recognize th at the fa il u re on the part of ABAG to f u l f i l l 

it s rc le on a tim ely basis places a conside rab le burden on you r agency 

to come up with a BANAP fo r the Bay Area by the end of the year.

Citizen s fo r a Better Environment, which has played an ac tiv e ro le in 

working with the ABAG Environmental Management Task Force on form ulating 

an acceptab le Plan, is very concerned tr ia l the whole process w il l fa il to 

prot ec t the health and economic well-being of the Bay Area community.

We share the concerns voiced by ARB's Planning Ch ief William Lo ckett in 

his le tte r of 19 A pril to Rod Diridon, Preside nt o f ABAG. S p e cific a lly, 

we agree with Lo ckett th at the dele tion of land use and tran sp or ta tio n 

co nt rols represents a s ig n if ic a n t de fic ie ncy in the Plan. We fu rt he r 

believe th at the pre sen t ABAG Plan w il l not meet 1982 federal clean a ir 

standards or qu a lify the Bay Area fo r a five-y ear waiver fo r attainm ent 

of the oxidan t standard . This means th at fede ral sanctions would be in 

ord er as soon as Ju ly 1979.

In a memorandum to the Executive Board -of ABAG dated 18 A pril 1978 (a 

copy c f which is en clo sed), I pointe d out th at fede ral san ctions could 

involve pe na lties to the Bay Area of up to $130 m illio n per year. Our 

pr ojec tio ns were confirmed by an 8-page memorandum prepared by EPA's 

Office of Regional Counsel and tra ns mitted to ABAG by the EPA Regional 

Adm inistra tor the fo llo w in g day.
100

Recent pronouncements by David Hawkins, Ass ista nt Adm inistra tor of EPA 

fo r A ir and Waste Management, warn th at states who want "to s it on th e ir 

hands and c a ll people's b lu ff " on the sanction s should not do so because 

" i t wo n't wo rk." (BNA Environment Reporter , Curren t Developments, page 

1908.) Unless an approvable SIP is presented to EPA on January 1, 1979, 

we see a long series of co nfront at io ns , w ith the Bay Area being the 

ultim at e lo se r.

We have a fu rt he r concern. We be lie ve th a t whatever process is used 

henceforth to generate an approvable SIP, i t must continue to invo lve 

meaningful pu bl ic pa rt ic ip ation . That, however, inv olves gi ving the 

pu blic tim el y op po rtu nity to comment on dra fts and to partic ip ate in 

pu blic hearings. Even under idea l scheduling co nd ition s, i t would be 

d iff ic u lt to ensure pu blic p a rt ic ip a ti o n , given the sh ort amount of time 

av aila bl e. Unless ARB works out a schedule w ithin the next month, we 

doubt th at the pu bl ic w il l have ample op po rtunity to enter the planning 

process. Because the SIP w il l govern how people in the Bay Area are 

going to li v e in the next several decades, a fa il u re to allow meaningful 

pu blic pa rt ic ip ation is li k e ly to have severe p o li tic a l rep ercussions.

We have heard from a variety of sources th at ARB may "work th is one out 

in the clo set u n ti l a ft e r the November e le c ti o n ." We hope th at th is w il l 

not be the case. We would appre cia te reassurance th at ARB w il l begin 

working immediately on an approvable SIP and th at the re w il l be op po rtu nity 

fo r pu blic pa rt ic ip ation at every stage between now and 1 January 1979. We 

therefore hope to have an early response from you to the fo llo win g questions:

1. When ABAG appoints a Contin uing Planning Committee to d ra ft 

the BANAP fo r subm itta l to the ARB, what w il l be the dea dlin e 

fo r such a subm itta l?

2. W ill ARB provide gu id elin es, spe cific require ments, and funding 

to assis t ABAG in dra ft in g the BANAP?

3. W ill any meetings between ABAG and the ARB s ta ff be announced 

in advance, and w il l members of the pu blic be perm itte d to 

attend?

4. At what po int w il l ARB take ove r re sp o n sib ility to produce a 

BANAP i f the Continuing Planning Committee fa il s to address 

it s task serio us ly?

5. What w il l be the schedule fo r cir c u la ti n g BANAP documents fo r 

comments by othe r agencies and the pu blic?

6. W ill the re be pu blic hearing s in the Bay Area on the fi n a l 

proposed BANAP no la te r than October so th at pu blic comments 

can be taken in to account in the document submitted to EPA 

on 1 January 1979? I f so, when would you anticip ate these 

hearings takin g place?
101

7. What othe r procedures do you intend to use to ensure th at 

the re w il l be meaningful pu bl ic in pu t in to the BANAP 

development process?

We thought th at the ABAG/EMP experiment produced a good Dra ft Environmental 

Management Plan, and proposed on ly fo ur amendments to i t (a copy of which 

is also enclosed ). Unfo rtun at ely, our recommendations on a ir qu ality were 

relegated to an Addendum to the Plan th at the ABAG Executive Board elim inated 

at it s meeting on 20 A pril 1978.

We are sorry th at the pla nning process, which began so w e ll, has given way 

to inte nse lobbying pressure from special in te re st groups. These in te re sts 

have succeeded in wa tering down or elim in ating key measures w ithin the 

Environmental Management Plan since it s release in d ra ft form in January 1978. 

Though i t is po ssible th a t ABAG's Contin uing Planning Committee alone w il l 

rejuve nate the Plan, i t looks to us th at i t w il l be up to ARB to salvage the 

situa tion . We are hopeful th at you do so and do so with pu blic p a rt ic ip a tio n .

We inte nd to pa rt ic ip ate active ly in the development of a satisfa cto ry BANAP 

document, and are prepared to have members of our lega l and s c ie n tif ic s ta ff 

work close ly with the ARB s ta ff i f you sc de sire .

I f you have any po ints you wish to c la rif y about the questions in th is le tte r, 

please do not hesita te to co ntact us. We look forw ard to hearing from you at 

the e a rl ie s t po ssible da te, sin ce time is sh or t and the re is much to be done.

Sin cerely

Jeffre y Gabe

S ta ff S cie ntist

JG :rf

Enc.

cc: Paul DeFalco, USEPA 

Lawrence Dahms, MTC 

D.J. Kallaghan, BAAPCD 

Rod Diridon, ABAG
1 0 2

ronmerrrai

PUBLISHED BY CITIZENS FO R A BE TTER ENVIRONMENT

This “ natural” fertilizer

con tain s more than five

tim es the recommended

level o f cadmium, as well

as other dan gerous substances.
103

h Hivlronmemai < > 'h

CBE Briefs

Illinois

Energy Policy

Com Ed Rate Case

CBE presented the expert testimony of 

Dr. John L. Neufeld before the Illinois 

Commerce Commission (ICC). Dr. Neufeld analyzed the construction plans of 

Commonwealth Edison in the light of the 

utility's forecasted excess reserve margin of 30% in the early 1980s. along with 

the company’s recent decision to retire 

six fossil-fuel plants earlier than required.

Dr. Neufeld testified that unnecessary construction by utilities can cost 

utility customers hundreds of millions, 

even billions, of dollars He testified that 

Edison may be undertaking such unnecessary construction, for example the 

proposed Braidwood Nuclear Station 

Cancellation of this station would save 

Edison's customers $540 million. 

Southwestern Wyoming Coal 

CBE filed a comment on the draft Environm ental Impact Statement being 

prepared for the Southwest Wyoming 

coal region. CBE asked the Department 

of the Interior to consider the s oc ioec onomic impact that may result in Illin ois if 

Commonwealth Edison begins burning 

Wyoming coal at its Powerton Station 

CBE believes that the substitution o, 

Wyoming coal for Illinois coal could 

cos t more than 6 00 Illinois miners their 

jobs.

Air Pollution

Wells Ma nufacturing Case

CBE and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency presented arguments to 

the Illinois Supreme Court in the Wells 

case Homeowners in the area around 

Wells had testified before the Pollution 

Control Board that Wellss emissions 

were causing people in the area to 

suffer headaches, nausea, and numerous 

other physical symptoms The Board 

fined Wells $9,000 and ordered them to 

reduce emissions But Wells argued that 

there is no technical way to control this 

pollutio n, and the Illin ois Appellate 

Court ruled in the company s favor We 

are appealing this ruling

National

Toxic Substances

Effluent Standards

Negotiations with the U.S Environmental 

Protection Agency (US. EPA) over effluent standards for industry continue CBE 

attended a meeting with the National Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington to discuss proposed modifications 

to our settlement agreement with the 

U.S. EPA.

Alternative Pest Management

CBE has been invited to participate in an 

Office of Technology Assessment (OT A) 

panel to discuss “Alternative Pest Management Strategies in Food Production 

in the Cornbelt.” A document on this 

subject will be prepared by the panel 

and will be presented to the Senate 

Subcommittee on Agriculture. Food, and 

Nutrition in early July.

California

Energy Policy

Coal Utilization Panel

CBE has completed a report of roughly 

20,000 words for the OTA, summarizing 

curre nt sc ie nt ific liter ature on the 

effects of sulfur pollutants — which are 

derived primarily from coal combustion 

— on vegetation. The OTA will use this 

report as part of its study of the environmental repercussions of implementing 

President C arter's energy policy, which 

calls for increased use of coal.

Water Pollution

Sewage Treatm ent

CBE filed comments with the U.S. EPA 

concerning proposed regulations which 

would permit certain communities along 

the West Coast to gain exemptions from 

installing effic ient secondary water 

po llu tio n co ntrol equ ipm ent at their 

sewage treatment plants a s^quired by 

the Clean Water Act. CBE feels that 

such exemptions represent an unnecessary retreat from our national water 

po llu tio n abatement program and a

threat to ocean ecosystems. CBE urged 

that very restrictive language be used in 

the regulations to limit the exemptions 

to a few special cases where discharges are small and isolated.

Wisconsin

Air Pollution

J.l. Case Co.

After the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issued new permits 

for foundry facilities in Racine without 

requiring proper Public Service Commission (PSC) review of the project. 

CBE raised the question of whether the 

DNR is taking sufficient steps to prote ct 

Wisconsin air. CBE is examining pro cedures used by the DNR to assess impact 

on air quality, its monitoring of new facilities. and its lack of a permit approval 

method which would insure that the new 

Clean Air Act amendments are not being 

violated.

Wisconsin Paperboard

Increasing air emission viola tions from 

Wisconsin Paperboard Company have 

been noticed by Milwaukee residents 

and by CBE staff CBE gathered ev idence of these viola tions and has petitioned the U.S. EPA to issue a Notice of 

Violation as required under section 113 

of the Clean Air Act

Energy Policy

New Pow er Plant

CBE has attended a serie s of meetings 

coordinated by a group of priva te citizens opposed to the construction of a 

new coal-fired e lectric plant in the Belgium-Port Washington area The proposed facility would injure air quality in 

Southeast Wisconsin. CBE is advisinc 

the group on procedures for intervention 

and on legal questions.

Rate Hike

CBE has intervened in opposition to a 

Wiscons in Electric Pow er Company 

(WEPCo) 6.1%. or $31 million, rate increase request CBE won postponement 

of an immediate 3.4% interim rate increase request, made by the company 

JULY 1978
104

: BTvIraimenTa , ' j •

Gardeners Beware

Municipal sanitary districts have been selling and giving away treated sewage as fertilizer. Unfortunately, this sewage is contaminated with heavy metals and other toxic substances that

can enter the food we eat. Of particular importance is cadmium, a toxic heavy metal already

reaching dangerous levels in the American diet.

by Dana J. Davoli, Ph D.

Since 1974, the Metropolitan Sanitary 

District of Chicago has made available 

free to the public a digested sludge 

called Nu-Earth. Thousands of tons of 

Nu-Earth, an end-produ ct of city sewage 

that would otherwise have to be disposed of at great cost, have been used 

by Chicago-area gardeners as a soil 

conditio ner and fe rt iliz e r. Sim ila r 

sludge-disposal programs have been 

used around the country. The city of Milwaukee pioneered in this area with a 

program begun in 1926. Since then 

70,000 tons a year of the Milwaukee 

product. Milorganite, have been sold 

throughout the country, generating the 

Milwaukee Sewerage Commission an 

income of roughly $4 6 million a year

The FDA has singled out

cadmium as being the

greatest th reat to human

health now present in the

food supply.

The use of municipal sludge as a soil 

conditioner and fertilizer at first glance 

appears to be an excellent method of 

disposal. What better way to recycle an 

otherwise wasted resource that is rich 

in nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic 

compounds? Unfortunately, the sludges 

produced by industrial cities are con ­

taminated with tox ic substances, including metals such as cadmium, lead, and 

mercury, and persistent organic compounds such as PCBs and pesticides. 

Food crops grown on land treated with 

such sludges can absorb and concentrate these toxins, thereby facilitating 

entry of hazardous substances into the 

human food chain.

One of the most present dangers 

arising from the use of sludges as fer tilizers comes from their cadmium content 

Cadmium, an extremely toxic heavy 

metal that is readily absorbed from soil 

by plants, is present in high concentrations city sludge (Nu-Earth: 180 ppm;

Milorganite: 114 ppm). Reports, recommendations, and proposed regulations 

published by the U S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Food and Drug 

Administration, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, and the General Accounting 

Office have recognized the health hazards that can result from the use of cadmium-contaminated sludges on cro pland. In fact, the FDA has singled out 

cadmium as being the greatest threat to 

human health now present in the food 

supply.

To xicity of Cadmium

Cadmium is a non-essential metal 

that is virtually absent from the body at 

birth, but which accumulates with age. 

mainly in the kidneys and liver. The major source of cadmium intake for humans 

is through foods, but air, water, and cigarettes also contribute

Both human and animal data demonstrate that ingestion of cadmium adversely affects many organ systems in 

the body, including the kidneys, the cardiovascular system (heart and blood 

vessels), and the skeleton.’ In humans, 

the kidney is the first organ to be damaged; in some cases, the condition may 

progress to complete kidney failure. Although most observable kidney damage 

occurs when the le vel of cadmium in the 

kidney accumulates to 200 ppm. a 

“ safe level has not been demonstrated. 

In addition, cadmium has been shown to 

cause hypertension and arterios clerosis in animals, and these studies are 

supported by human data which indicate 

a correlation between these conditions 

and exposure to cadmium

In addition, recent data have led the 

U.S EPA -C ar cino ge n As sessment 

Group to conclude that cadmium is an 

on co ge n, a tu m or- pro ducin g su bstance.2

 Human studies have shown significant increases in prostrate cancer 

among persons occupationally exposed 

to cadmium And the presence of cadmiDr Davoli is a CBE staff scientist

At a Nu-Earth distribution site, photographed in early June, the Chicago MSD had a

"No Dum ping" sign, but none of the prom ­

ised signs that would warn Nu-Earth users

of the hazards of using sludge on vegetable

gardens. (Photo by David Dinsmore Comey.)

If You Have Used Sludge on

Your Garden

CB E and other groups loo king into the 

problem of con tam inated sludge have determined that vegetables should not be

grown on soil that has been treated with

sludge. This is the adv ice being given to 

people who ca ll the Unive rsity o f Illin ois 

Coo perative Extension Service, as we ll as 

CBE.

If you still feel that you want to grow 

vegetables in a sludge-treated garden, we 

recom mend that you not grow roo t crops, 

such as carrots, or leafy vegetables, such as 

lettuce. Instead we recommend that you 

grow crops such as corn or tomatoes. Also, 

it is possible to reduce plants' uptake of 

cadmium and othe r tox ic substances by in ­

creasing the alk alin ity o f the so il. You can 

test the ac idity o f you r soil by using a soil 

test ki t. such as can be purchased in a garden supply store. Th e alk alin ity of the soil 

can be raised to more than pH 6.0 by using 

lim e, which can also be purchased in garden supply stores.

JULY 1 97 8
105

i

^rmvlronmenrai <

Nu -Ea rth gard ene rs warn ed

of poisoning , cance r h azards

Warnings to accompany Nu-Earth

Sanitary Dist. fertilizer

called a health

Chemist urges 

food growers to 

shun Nu -Earth 

Plan a ler t signs 

at N u-Earth sites

hazard

Milorganite 

feed warning

um in U S drinking water has been co rrelated with cancer of the pharynx, 

esophagus, intestine, larynx, lung, and 

bladder in those areas.

The Office of Special Pesticide Reviews of the U S EPA has concluded 

that cadmium is an oncogen, a mutagen 

(causing chromosome damage), and a 

teratogen (causing birth detects).3

 As a 

result. EPA has taken steps to ban pesticides containing cadmium

Cadmium in the Human Diet

In 1972. the Joint Committee of the 

World Health Organization and the Food 

and Ag ric ulture Organization of the 

United Nations published a report on 

cadmium? This group concluded that. 

“ .. the present day levels of cadmium 

in the kidney should not be allowed to 

rise further " The group proposed a 

"provisional tolerable weekly intake of 

400 micrograms (/xg) — 500 m3 per individual (57—71 per day)" to protect

It is not a coincidence that, while many cities continue to distribute sludge as a g arden fertilizer, the only citie s that have, as of May 1978, discontinued the practice are 

Chicago and Milwaukee, where Citizens for a Better Environment has local offices.

In late January, CBE staff scientist Dana Davoli testified before the Illinois Pollution 

Control Board to the effect that solid wastes left after treatment of sewage could contain high levels of toxic substances. In March, CBE presented a report, "Milorganite 

Gardening: A Health Hazard,' to the Milwaukee Sewerage Commission (MSC). and in 

April CBE formally requested that the MSC ban Milorganite sales The MSC has 

agreed Io affix labels to all Milorganite bags indicating clearly that Milorganite should 

not be used on soil on which cro ps for human consumption may be grown.

In April CBE also testified at Environmental Protection Agency hearings in Washington D C. concerning the health hazards that may result from use of municipal 

sludge as a fertilizer. As a direct result of CBE's having informed EPA of this hazard, 

the agency is now taking steps toward controlling the use of such sludge

In May. CBE appeared at a special meeting of the' Metropolitan Sanitary Dis trict of 

Greater Chicago (MSD) to protest the MSD's sludge-distribution program Since 

1974. the MSD has given away sludge fertilizer free, without controlling the uses to 

which it will be put. Since CBE began alerting the public and government agencies to 

the danger, however, the MSD has begun to require that people taking sludge fill out a 

form explaining the use tor which it is intended The MSD has also agreed to post 

warning signs at all sludge distributio n points.

CBE held a press conference on the hazards of sludge-based fertilizers, and this 

press conference was widely covered in the local press It also received some attention nationally, for example in California, where other sludg e-fertilizer programs, similar to those operated by Chicago and Milwaukee, also exist.

It has been a practice of municipal sanitary d istricts such as the MSC and the MSD 

to play down the hazards arising from the presence of to xic substances such as ca dmium in their sludge-derived fertilizers This may be because the sanitary dis tricts 

find the use of sludge as fertilizer a convenient and inexpensive way to dispose of this 

sludge, which otherwise might have to be disposed of at great expense CBE 

believes that the use of sludge as fertilizer could be an excellent way to recycle this 

valuable organic waste. For this reason we are strong advocates of pre-treatment 

standards for industry — that is, we wish to see toxic substances removed from 

waste at the source, long before they have an opportun ity to contaminate our food 

and water

Until such standards are brought into effect, however, the use of municipal sludge 

on home gardens will be ill-advised We regret the inconvenience to home gardeners, 

but we believe that people should be informed of the hazards they face

Americans are already

ingesting nearly enough

cadmium to cause kidney

damage in from 2.5 to 5.0%

of the population.

against kidney damage. They did not 

consider the more recent data on oncogenicity . teratogenicity, or mutagenicity.

More recently. Dr. Tord Kjellstrom 

conducted a study of a group of Japanese women in which he calculated the 

proportion of women with kidney damage at age 50 as well as the level of 

cadmium in their diet.5

 Using such data, 

it was possible to estimate the p roportion of a population that will have kidney 

damage at age 50 at given levels of cadmium consumed daily in foods. (Table 

1.) Assuming a weight of 70 kilograms 

(about 160 pounds) for American males 

and 53 kilograms (about 110 pounds) 

for American females, his data indicate 

that 2.5% of the male population and 

5.0% of the female population in the U S 

would develop kidney damage at age 5( 

if their diets contained 80 and 76 Aig 

of cadmium per day. respectively.

How does the average American’s intake of cadmium compare to the levels 

of ingestion known to cause kidney 

damage? From its 1974 survey of heavy 

metals in foods, the FDA has concluded 

that the average national dietary intake 

of cadmium from food among teenage

JULY 1978
106

^BTvlrorimerna^.^o

Table 1

Food

Class

Concentration of Cd

in FDA Market

Survey in ppm

(dry weight)

Concentration of Cd

in Crops Grown on

Sludge in ppm

(dry w eig ht)

Increase in Cd

Concentrations in

Sludge-G rown Crops

Mg of C d/Day in

Normal D iet from

Each Food Class

(FDA survey)

Mg of C d/Day in

Diet from Each Food

Clas s Grown on

Sludged Land

Grains 05 30 500% 11.66 70

Leafy .51 5 7 8 1033% 3 1 8 36

Legume .01 87 8600% 0. 42 36

Roots .................... 21 1.11 428% 0 7 6 4

Garden Fruits .19 .33 74% 1.71

17 73

3

151

*

males Is 72 per day. Therefore, a 

segment of our population is already ingesting that amount of cadmium which 

the WHO/FAO says should not be exceed ed in order to protect against 

kidney damage According to Kjellstrom, this is nearly the amount that 

would re sult in kidney damage to a substantial portion of the population. The 

FDA figures do not include amounts of 

cadmium absorbed from air and cigarettes.

From data on kidney damage alone, it 

is obvious that levels of cadmium in the 

human diet should not be allowed to in- 

;rease The more recent evidence 

showing cadmium to be an oncogen 

strengthens this position since a "safe 

level" for chemicals which cause tumors 

has never been demonstrated

Add itional Hazards of Sludge

A recent U S. EPA analysis of Chicago sludge from the Stickney plant 

found that it contains 13 ppm of po lychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and levels 

as high as 24 ppm of compounds known 

as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAH). As most people are now aware. 

PCBs cause cancer, reproductive failures. and nerve damage and are thought 

by some scie ntists to be among the 

most toxic and persistent substances 

known. Data on the PAH are less complete. but it is known that several members of this class of compounds are ca rcinogens.

It is likely that a hundred other persistent toxic chem icals are also present 

in sludge. A large proportion of the hazardous substan ces dis charged into 

sewage by industry is not removed during the sewage treatment process.

How hazardous are these contaminants when sludge is used on gardens? 

The answer is unclear because little 

data is available to show how PCBs and

Sludge from Chicago and

Milwaukee contains more

than five times the level of

cadmium recommended by

the FDA for sludges to be

applied to croplands.

other persistent organic compounds are 

taken up by crops. It is known, however, 

that root cro ps such as carrots are capable of absorbing PCBs and persistent 

pesticid es from the soil. Carrots can absorb up to 30% of the PCBs present in 

soil.

Hazards of Cadmium in 

Chicago and Milwaukee Sludge

The amount of cadmium absorbed 

from soil by food crops depends on various factors: soil acidity/alkalinity, soil 

cadmium concentration, crop varieties, 

soil absorption capacity, and soil temperatures. CBE has estimated that, if the 

ap plica tio n rate suggested by the 

M etropolitan San ita ry D is tr ic t of 

Chicago were followed (two bushels of

Nu-Earth per 100 square feet, or a depth 

of 0.3 inches, applied to an alkaline soil 

of pH greater than 6). one application of 

Nu-Earth will lead to soil cadmium concentrations of 5.4 ppm Recommended 

application rates for Milorganite are 

lower. But until recently neither the MSD 

nor the MSC attempted to warn consumers of risks that might result from 

use of their products As a result, we 

believe that recommended rates have 

often been exceeded. This is particularly true in the case of Nu-Earth, which can 

be and often has been used in p lace of

dirt In addition, repeated applications of 

these fertilizers will increase the levels 

of cadmium in the soil.

Sources o f Dietary Cadmium

In its 1973 national survey, the Food

and Drug Administration calculated the 

concentration of cadmium in several 

food classes and the contribution of 

each food class to the diet 6 (See Table 

2. column (1).) As an example, leafy 

vegetables contain an average of 0.51 

ppm of cadmium and contribute 3.18 m9 

of cadmium per day to the average diet.

Experiments conducted by Giordano 

and Mays7 and Chaney and co workers8

demonstrate the levels of cadmium that 

result in vegetables and grains grown on 

sludge fertilized soil. (See Table 2. co lumn (2).) In these experiments, soil cadmium concentrations ranged from 0 4 to 

2.73 ppm and pH ranged from 6.3 to 7.0. 

Using the results o f Giordano and Mays 

Continued on page 10.

Table 2

Food

Class

(1 )

Concentration of Cd

in FDA Market

Survey in ppm

(dry weight)

(2 )

Co nce ntratio n of Cd

in Crops Grown on

Sludge in ppm

(dry w eig ht)

(3 )

Increase in Cd

Concentrations in

Sludg e-G row n Crops

(4 )

Mgo f C d/D ay in

Normal Diet from

Each Food Class

(FDA survey)

(5 )

Mgof C d/Da y in

Diet from Each Food

Class Grown on

Sludged Land

Leafy 0.51 2 8 6 5500% 3 1 8 178

Grains 0 0 5 1 32 2540% 11.66 307

Legumes 0 01 2 74 27300% 0 4 2 115

15 26 600

JULY 1978

*

B
107

gaiBTVIronmenTai/rvfi^-'

ABAG and Local Control

Ideally, local agencies should be in charge of environmental planning for their areas. In theory,

such agencies are best suited to determine the needs of a ll the interest groups in their area,

* and balance them against environmental considerations. In practice, however, local politicians

may be unwilling to antagonize special interest groups.

by David Comey

The U.S. is now struggling to meet the 

requirements of the Clean Water Act and 

the Clean Air Act and its Amendments. If 

successful, the country will be close to 

achieving a goal that, not long ago. 

seemed nearly impossible: clean air and 

clean water, achieved without major 

economic dislocation.

The key to this process is careful 

planning — so that social, economic, 

and environmental considerations can 

be balanced without prejudice to any of 

the three. Thus the Clean Water Act of 

1972 provides federal money to local 

agencies so that they can determine acceptable limits for the pollution of their 

waterways and plan the growth of their

communities accordingly. The Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1977 require the 

states to submit plans for attaining 

federal air pollution standards by JanuThe U.S. gave the Bay Area

$4 .3 million for a unique

experiment in local

environmental management.

ary 1, 1979 These documents, after 

being approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U S EPA) are intended to control air pollution lor 25 

years The states are given until 1982 to

implement their plans Me tro polita n 

areas can obtain an additional five-year 

extension of the deadlines for attaining 

federal carbon monoxide and pho tochem ical oxida nt standards, if the y 

have, in good faith, attempted to meet 

these standards and have been unable 

to do so

But Congress had an overriding concern in passing these important pieces 

of environmental legislation, and this 

was the attainment of clean air and clean 

water, for the sake of all Americans The 

federal legislation calls for the U.S EPA 

to step in if states and/or local govern 

ments shirk their resp onsibilities under 

the law

a

The Bay Area's deteriorating air quality rarely permits a clea r view of San Fra ncisc o and Marin County suc h as this one tak en from Berketey.
108

h mvlronmenra <'

♦

Recently the State of California attempted a unique experiment in local 

environmental planning — one which 

could have been a model for future attempts at balancing the interests of all 

groups against the ultimate importance 

of protecting the biosphere. This experiment now appears to have been a failure. largely because local officials were 

unwilling to face controversy, preferring 

to pass on resp onsibility for such d ecisions to higher levels of government.

In moving to comply with federal environmental requirements, the State of

California invited the Association of Bay 

Area Governments (ABAG) to arrive at a 

comprehensive environmental management plan for the nine-county Bay Area

Failure to comply with the

Clean Air Act could cost the

Bay Area $ 130 million a

year.

Not just air pollution or water pollution, 

but air pollution, water pollution, and 

solid waste management were to be addressed. simultaneously. The U S. EPA 

gave ABAG $4 3 millio n for this project.

assembling funds provided under nu-. 

merous pieces of federal legislation. 

Thus planning for growth was to be unified with environmental prote ction, and 

local agencies — not federal or state 

bureaucrats — were to make the de cisions

The ABAG staff, together with numerous other agencies, labored for several 

years to produce this plan, a draft of 

which was released in January. 19 78

The California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) and other state agencies, as 

well as local environmental groups such 

as Citizens for a Better Environment, re ­

acted favorably to the plan, on the 

David Comey is CBE s Executive Director

(Photo by David Dinsmore Comey.)

*

B
109

mgsMonmenTat^fc

whole. The draft document cle ar ly 

showed that local planners can capably 

address themselves to local environmental problems.

But certain sections ol the plan tell 

under sharp criticism Irom area industry, 

banks, and labor unions Specific ally, 

they attacked the sections intended to 

bring the Bay Area into compliance with 

the provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

These sections formed the Bay Area's

contribution to the Air Quality Management Plan which the State of California is 

required to submit to U S EPA by January 1. 1979 The sections dealt with 

transportation and land use; they would 

have instituted measures to improve 

public transportation and discourage 

use of private automobiles, and they 

would have imposed tight contro ls on 

where industries could be located and 

new construction could take place.

In the controversy that followed, an 

organization called the Bay Area C ouncil, representing industry and banks, 

took the position that Congress should 

re-e xam ine the req uirem ents of the 

Clean Air Act. on the grounds that they 

are too strict, while a coalition ol 

groups, including the Bay Area Lung Associations. the Sierra Club, the Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and CBE, 

pr es en te d re co mmen da tio ns which 

would have strengthened the plan On 

April 20. ABAG s Executive Board opted 

to eliminate all the controversial pr ov isions from the environmental management plan, passing these provisions on 

to a "Continued Planning Committee' 

for study At this writing, the Committee 

has not been appointed; CBE is seeking 

appointment to it.

In effect. ABAG has responded to 

controversy by sidestepping its role in 

designing California's clean air plan. 

The responsibility now lies entirely with 

the California Air Resources Board, 

which has less than eight months before 

the federal deadline must be met The 

CARB is also not eager to involve itself 

in a controversy, particularly before the 

elections that w ill take place in November

In April. CBE discovered that CARB 

officials intended "to go into the c loset

until after the November elect io n" in 

releasing a clean air plan CBE instantly 

protested, pointing out that from November to January there will not be sufficient time to hold adequate public hearings on such a plan, as required under 

the Clean A ir Act Amendments.

CBE staff sc ie nt ist Jeffre y Gabe 

warned publicly — and his statement received wide local coverage — that the 

Bay Area stands to lose as much as 

$130 million annually in federal and 

other funds if an acceptable plan is not 

presented to US. EPA by January 1. 

Under the Clean Air Act Amendments. 

US EPA will not be able to make grants 

for projects such as sewage treatment 

facilities, and the government will not be 

able to provide money for transportation 

(except for safety) in the Bay Area until a 

good faith effort is made to comply with 

the law. CBE's contention was supported by a memorandum from the Office of 

the Regional Counsel of the U S. EPA. 

The Regional Administrator of the EPA. 

Paul De Falco Jr., issued a statement to 

the effect that EPA will certainly impose 

the sanctions required by the law 

James Cannon. CBE Research Director, told reporters. "The ABAG process 

was an important exercise in local control. but the plan as it now stands is not 

good enough We are now faced with increasing control by the state and federal 

government, but Congress was very 

clear in the Clean Air Act. If local 

governments can't come up with an environmental program to protect their 

citizens, state governments should, and 

the federal government will."

Unfortunately, there is a real danger 

that state and federal officia ls will respond to this failure on the local level by 

devising the kind of "heavy handed environmental regulations that are unpopular among many citizens. For example, 

discussions with officials indicate that 

one proposal for reducing hydrocarbon 

emissions would place strict regulations on the use of gaso line-pow ered 

lawn mowers Such regulations "do the 

job.'" but they are a far cry from the kind 

of careful planning for growth, and the 

careful balancing of social, economic, 

and environmental considerations, that 

is the ideal way to comply with the federal law. Such unpopular regulations inevitably create a backlash against environmental values in general And this 

plays into the hands who would like to 

see our e xisting federal laws weakened

JULY 1978

35 -395 0 - 79 - 8
110

h sivlronmenrai<

Environmental Briefs

A summary of recent developments in the area of science and environmental regulation.

Toxic Sub stances: (Control) The Organization tor Economic 

Cooperation and Development (OECD) is mounting a major 

effort toward international cooperation in the regulation of toxic 

chemicals ((Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News. May 10 ).. .In 

an effort to avoid further crises similar to that involving PBBs 

several years ago. Michigan has established a toxic sub ­

stances control commission that can declare toxic substance 

emergencies in the state It also has other wide powers in the 

control of toxics. The new law establishes a $5,000 per day fine 

for failure to report evidence of an abnormality or irregularity in 

human or animal health or behavior caused by a toxic sub ­

stance. (Chem ical Regulation Reporter. May 19) (Velsicol 

Chemical Co of Chicago and the other company charged with 

federal law viola tions in the Michigan PBB disaster pleaded no 

contest and were each ser^enced to pay $4,000 in fines, the 

maximum under the law The two companies have paid more 

than $40 million to fanners whose herds were lost to PBB contamination — New York Times. May 20.)

(Nuclear Wastes) The House Government Operations Committee issued a report suggesting that further nuclear power 

plant licensing be halted until radioactive waste problems are 

solved. The report found that the costs of nuclear power, including the cost of waste disposal, might be much greater than 

those for “ safe, renewable resource energy alternatives such 

as solar power " At least 3,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel 

are being stored at commercial reactor sites, and an additional' 

17,000 metric tons are expected to accumulate in the next decade (Environment Reporter. May 5).. More than 25 pounds of 

enriched uranium are missing from a Pennsylvania processing 

plant producing reactor fuel for nuclear submarines Total 

losses at the plant amount to 438 pounds since 1968 (Chem ical & Enginee ring News. May 22) .. Michigan Gov Wm Milliken has signed a bill banning, with few exceptions, disposal and 

storage of radioactive wastes in the state. (ER, May 8)

(Hazardous Wastes) It may cost the state of Massachusetts 

$1.5 million to clean up a hazardous waste treatment facility 

there. The company that operated the facility went bankrupt in 

December, leaving 15.000 containers of hazardous waste to be 

removed (P&TCN, May 3). . .In proposing guidelines. EPA has 

stated that hazardous wastes, mostly industry derived, amount 

to more than 30 million tons a year. 90% of which is not disposed of prope rly. (Pollution Engineering. April)

(Pesticides) An EPA study group has criticized the way EPA 

evaluates hazards posed by pesticid es in foods The group 

said that vegetarians and infants, among others, may be harmed 

by levels EPA considers "safe " for the general population 

(CRR. May 19)

(In teg rated Pest Management) Scie ntist s in Ca lifo rnia 

released 150.000 genetically altered mosquitoes, now immune 

to carrying sleeping sickness, in an attempt to curb the disease. This is the first large-scale test of this IPM technique, that 

has proved effective in the laboratory (NYT. May 17)

Air P ollution: (Ozone) Scientists at the University of California 

have found that, while ozone alone does not appear to cause

JULY 1978

permanent lung damage, it does weaken the epithelial cells of 

the lung making it more susceptible to damage by other air pollutants This effect may not be observed until 24 hours after exposure. and it may last as long as a week In dogs, levels as low 

as 0.3 and 0 4 parts per million of ozone have been shown to 

establish a susceptibility to other pollutants The U S is said to 

be suffering "an epidemic " of lung disease, possibly because 

of air pollution (ER. May 12)

(Steel) An EPA draft document states that coke-oven emissions are carcinogenic and also can lead to nonmalignant respiratory diseases. The incidence of lung cancer among coke 

oven workers is three times that for persons smoking two packs 

ol cigarettes a day. and the impact of coke-oven emissions 

spreads to a radius of 15 kilometers from the source EPA estimates that “on the order of 15 million' persons are exposed 

(ER. May 1 9)... EPA says U S Steel particulate emissions at its 

South Works plant on Chicago s South Side are more than 

twice the permissible amount The Company has been warned 

to clean up or face civil or criminal sanctions (Chicago Tribune. May 27)

(Lead) With the new EPA standard on airborne lead (1.5 micrograms per cubic meter — a standard CBE was instrumental 

in helping to obtain) due to go into effect on June 14. a report 

issued by the American Lung Association and the National Resources Defense Council found that thousands of children and 

adults in inner city environments, or living close to certain industries. have high lead levels in their bloo d Even low levels 

can cause subpar mental activity and anemia (NYT. May 8)

Pollution Control: The President's chief anti-inflation adviser. 

Robert Strauss, appeared on the NBC-TV “ Today" show to rescind statements he had made to the effect that environmental 

regulation is a major stimulator of inflation In subsequent meetings with environmental groups. Strauss repeated his assurances that he did not intend to “single out environmental concerns for attack (ER) . The Commerce Department has released a survey showing that U S business plans to spend $7 2 

billion in capital spending on pollution abatement in 1978, a 

3.0% increase over 1977 In real dollars. Commerce says, this 

actually represents a decrease of 2.0% in spending over last 

year Expenditures for pollution abatement will be 4 7% of total 

capital spending in 1978. compared to 5 1 % in 1977 and 5 6% in 

1976. (ER. March 26 ).. A study of the "Macroeconomics of 

Disease Prevention" in the U S shows that since 1900 “gains 

(in life expectancy) have been small for white males over 30. 

and only slightly better for the corresponding age groups ol 

white females and for both sexes in the black population .. 

Economists note that between 1940 and 1975 the average life 

span increased 15% while per capita disease care expenditures increased 314% in constant 1967 dollars " The authors 

conclude that "disease care" must be supplemented by “p rimary disease prevention." including control of environmental 

pollution, "i f healthy longevity is a d esirable goal (Science.

June 9)
I l l

$ i eMronmerna r ' *! •

Continued from page 5.

and Chaney and coworkers, CBE calcu ­

lated the concentration of cadmium in 

crops grown under their conditions and 

compared it to the concentration of cadmium in foods in the FDA survey. (See 

Table 2, column (3).) We found, for example. that the average concentration of 

cadmium in leafy vegetables grown 

under the experimental condition is 5.78 

ppm — 1.033% higher than the concentration of cadmium in the leafy vegetable s in the FDA survey. All five food 

classes showed increased levels of 

cadmium ranging from 74% to 8,600%.

We calculated that a person consuming food grown on a sludge-fertilized 

garden such as was used by Giordano 

and Mays and Chaney, et al. would consume 151 m9 of cadmium from these five 

food classes, while a person consuming 

food in the FDA survey ingests 17.7 p.g.

(See Table 2. columns (4) and (5).) The 

increased cadmium consumption could 

be much higher for those whose diet 

contains larger-than-average amounts 

of the five food classes or for those 

whose soil contains higher concentrations of cadmium or is more acid than 

th e s o il in th e G io r d a n o / 

Mays/Chaney/ef al. studies.

Governmental Proposed Regulations 

and Recommendations

Because cadmium is an extremely 

toxic metal, various federal agencies 

have proposed recommendations and 

regulations to prevent substantial increases of cadmium in the human diet 

and to prevent further pollution of the 

environment.

The EPA Office of Solid Waste9

 has 

proposed a maximum of 25 ppm for c admium in solid waste that may be applied 

to sites where tobacco, leafy vegetables, or root crops will be grown for 

human consumption. The EPA Office of 

Special Pesticide Review'0

 has recently 

issued a notice of Rebuttal Presumption 

of Registration of pesticides containing 

cadmium. The Food and Drug Administration" has recommended that the level 

of cadmium in sludges applied to agricultural land should not be greater than 

20 ppm And the Department of Agricultu re ,? has recommended that leafy 

vegetables or tobacco should not be 

grown on sludge-treated cropland. The 

DOA has also ruled that, when sludges 

are applied, soil pH should be 6.5 or 

higher and should thereafter be maintained in the range of from 6.0 to 6 5.

The recommendations made by the

FDA and the DOA, in particula r, have 

been in existence since 1976. Nevertheless, municipal agencies such as the 

Metropolitan Sanitary Dis tric t of Chicago and the Milwa ukee Sew erage 

Commission failed to act to alert the 

public to the danger. This is in spite of 

the fact that sludge from the MSD and 

the MSC contains levels of cadmium 9 

and 5.7 times, re spectively, the level of 

cadmium recommended by the FDA for 

sludges to be applied to croplands. It 

has been left almost entirely to con ­

cerned organizations such as Citizens 

for a Better Environment both to alert the 

public and to pressure the municipal 

agencies to take steps to protect the 

public health.

Footnotes

' “Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and 

the Contaminants — Mercury. Lead and Cadmium." Sixtee nth Re port of the Jo int

FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food A dditives. World Health Organization, Technical 

Report Series. No 505. Also. L Friberg, et al..

Cadmium in the Environment. 2nd edition. 

CRC Press, Inc., Cleveland. Ohio 

2

"The Carcinogen Assessment Group's Assessment of Cadmium." U S EPA. August 22. 

1977, R E. Albert. M.D.. Chairman, unpublished.

’"Cadmium: Position Document 1." Cadmium

Working Group. Office of Special Pesticide 

Reviews. US. EPA. 1977, Richard Troast. 

Project Manager, unpublished

4

 Op cit. World Health Organization 

5 T Kjellstrom, "Calculations of Exposure 

Limits for the Prevention of Cadmium-Induced 

Health Effects, unpublished

6

 "Compliance Program Evaluation. FY 1973," 

Heavy' Metals in Foods Survey. Food and 

Drug Administration. Bureau of Foods. Cited 

in "ORD Assessment of Health Effects Relating to Municipal Sludge Utilization." unpublished

7

 P.M. Giordano and D A. Mays. “Effect of Land 

Disposal Application of Municipal Waste on 

Crop Yields and Heavy Metal Uptake," 

EPA-600/2-77-014. April 1977.

8

 R L Chaney, et al.. "Plant Accumulation of 

Heavy Metals and Phytotoxicity Resulting 

from Utilization of Sewage Sludge and Sludge 

Composts on Cropland." in press.

9

 Federal Register. Volume 43, Number 25 

(February 6. 1978), p 4954

'° Federal Register. Volume 42. Number 24

(October 26. 1977). p 56574

" C.F. Jelinek and G.L Braude. “ Management 

of Sludge Use on Land. FDA Considerations." 

Proceedings of the Third National Con ference on Sludge Management. Disposal, and

Utilization (Miami Beach. Florida: December 

14-16, 1976). p 35

’* J.F. Parr, et al.. "Impacts of the Disposal of

Heavy Metals in Residues on Land and

Crops. Proceedings of the 1977 National

Conference on Treatment and Disposal of Industrial Wastewaters and Residues (Houston. 

Texas: April 26. 1977), p. 126.

The New Leaf

for the child in us all

Ichabod’s Coloring Contest

Was a Great Success

Ichabod Gerbil was very pleased with 

the response we received to our Sun 

Day coloring contest. Everyone at CBE 

enjoyed the entries very much, and they 

are now decorating one wall of our office We want to thank all who pa rticipated. but especially the artist Andrew 

Epstein, who graciously donated a Sun 

Drawing to the New Leaf We ll be sending out prizes very soon

JULY 1978
112

OiBBTVIron men TaifO&

Making a whale is as simple as finding a 

piece of paper and cutting it square — 

that is, so that all the sides are the same 

length Take corners A and B, as shown 

in Diagram 1. and told them as shown in 

Diagram 2.

2.

Now take com ers C and D and fold 

them (Diagram 3), and fold the whole 

thing right down the middle (Diagram 4)

JULY 1978

Now your piece of paper is beginning 

to look like a whale! The long, thin end is 

his tale. Fold it up (Diagram 5 ) Now you 

only have to fold his nose (Diagram 5 

ag ain) Make a dot for his eye, and he 

looks like a whale

You can make several of these 

whales out of pieces of different colored 

paper or out of white paper you color 

yourself and make a whalemobile for 

your room (The pattern for this paper 

whale was created by the Whale Protection Fund. 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington. DC . 20037, which is one of numerous groups fighting to save the 

whales from eventual extinction.) If you 

would like to know more about whales, 

you may want to refer to the December, 

1977, edition of The New Leaf, in which 

we had an article about "The Whale Nation." There are also numerous excellent books available, including one by 

Capt Jacques Cousteau, on the subject 

of this fascinating group of mammals
113

d T gens X

ETMronmenT

Suite 502 536 W Wuconsin/Milwaukee Wisconsin 53203 

Mam Ottice Suite 2610/59 E Van Buren/Chicago. Illinois 60605

Non-Profit Org 

US Postage

PAID

Permit No 4901

Milwauke e. Wl

CBE Holds Press Conference on Nuclear Evacuation

On Thursday. May 25, CBE held a press 

conference to announce the release o l a 

report on evacuation plans that might 

take effect in the case ol a nuclear 

power plant accident.

The CBE report found that 300.000 

people might die as a result of such an 

accident, because of lack of planning 

Evacuation would be needed to reduce 

the number of casualties after a large 

release of radioactive material, and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

in estimating the number of deaths that 

would occur as a result of a nuclear ac ­

cident. has assumed that 43% of the 

population within an area 25 miles 

downwind of the plant could be evacuated within one hour In fact, however, 

the NRC has tried to sidestep responsibility for evacuation planning, stating 

that responsibility lies with the General 

Services Administration (GSA) GSA has 

passed most of the work on to the 

Department of Housing and Urban Renewal. which has officially refused to do 

a job it legitimately believes should be 

done by the NRC As a result, no planning has taken place. The NRC is a llo wing nuclear power plants to operate in 

states where no evacuation plans wo rthy of the name e xist

The CBE report also gave details of 

evacuation drills and incidents in which 

there were real releases of radioactivity: In all these instances, attempts at 

evacuation resulted in chaos

The press conference was well attended ABC-TV and CBS-TV carried 

our report nationally on ABC s "Good 

Morning America" and "The CBS Morn Morning rvnei iua aiiu me v u j --- . — -

The volume of work being done by CBE is now so great that we fin d it impossible to

confin e the CBE Brie fs to one page As a res ult we have, regretfu lly, decided to

abandon our back -page calendar so that we can have more room in which to inform our members of CBE's activities.

Peter Cleary, statl phy sicist, and David

Comey. executive director, appear before

the press at CBE's Chicago o ffice

ing News ' Local TV and radio and both 

local newspapers carried stories The 

UPI and AP carried the story on their 

wires, and subsequently the story received excellent play in newspapers 

throughout the US. President Carter 

was in Chicago on that day, and he sent 

a member of his staff to CBE’s offices to 

obtain a copy of the report The State of 

California office in Washington has requested a copy, as has the NRC A front 

page item appeared in The Walt Street

Journal, and The Washington Post carried a long article, which prompted the 

Library of Congress to ask for a co py of 

our report

<BTVtonrrenrat '

is published monthly by Citizens for a Better 

Environment, a Not for Profit Corporation 

Offices:

CHICAGO Suite 2610

59 East Van Buren 

Chicago. Illinois 60605 

31 2- 93 9- 19 84 

(Research: 312—939-1530)

MADISON 2 West Mifflin

Madison, Wisconsin 53703 

608—251-2804

MILWAUKEE Suite 502

536 West Wisconsin Avenue 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203

414— 271 -7475

NEW YORK: Suite 425

25 Broad Street

New York. New York 10004

21 2- 42 5- 35 53

SAN Suite 600

FRANCISCO 88 First Street

San Francisco. California 94105

4 1 5 - 777-1984

WASHINGTON: Suite 203

1302 18th Street. NW 

Washington. D C 20036 

20 2- 22 3- 62 74

DEKALB 32 3E. Lincoln Highway

De Kalb. Illinois 60115 

815—758-1684

Membership in CBE ($15 a year) includes a 

free subscription to the CBE Environmental

Review and is tax deductible.

Editor: Flora Johnson 

Circulation Manager: Pat Treanor 

Design C onsultants: Goldsmith Yamasaki

Specht Inc

Cov er Photo: Since 1926. 70.000 tons a 

year of Milorganite. a fertilizer derived from 

Milwaukee sludge, has been sold around the 

country The bag clearly states that it 

contains a "natural, organic' fertilizer for use 

not only on turf and lawns but also on gardens. 

But Milorganite contains dangerous levels of 

cadmium and other toxic substances, which 

can be absorbed by vegetables (Photo by 

David Dinsmore Comey.)
1 1 4

A R e pr i nt fr o m

n vir o n m e nr ai

Y ^

P U B LI S H E D B Y CI TI Z E N S F O R A B E T T E R E N VI R O N M E N T

C a n c er — O ur S o ci al Di s e a s e

A pr o mi n e nt o n c ol o gi st a s k s u s t o c o n si d er t h e r e al c o st of c a n c e r a n d ot h er di s e a s e s t h at ar e

fr e q u e ntl y c a u s e d b y e x p o s ur e t o t o xi c s u b st a n c e s i n t h e e n vir o n m e nt.

b y J a n ett e O. S h er m a n, M. D.

T h e n u m b er of c h e mi c al s t h at a d v e r s el y

aff e ct h u ma n h e alt h a n d e c ol o gi c al s y st e m s i s l ar g e a n d c o nti n u e s t o gr o w. Alt h o u g h t h er e i s n o w wi d e s p r e a d p u bli c

a w ar e n e s s ol t h e h a z ar d s of e x p o s ur e t o

t o xi c s u b st a n c e s s u c h a s a s b e st o s,

vi n yl c hl o ri d e. P B Bs, P C B s. k e p o n e,

l e a d, a n d ar s e ni c, m o st c h e mi c al t o xi citi e s still g o u nr e c o g ni z e d a n d u nr e p orte d. W e ar e a w ar e of s o m e c a s e s of

a c u t e p oi s o ni n g, b ut t h er e h a s b e e n littl e or n o r e c o r d k e e pi n g t o a s s e s s t h e

l o n g-t e r m eff e c t s ol e x p o s ur e t o t o xi c

s u b st a n c e s

O n e of t h e m o st dr a m ati c i n di c at or s

of t h e i m p a ct of t o xi c c h e mi c al s i n o ur

e n vir o n m e nt i s t h e i n ci d e n c e of c a n c er

E x p o s u r e t o t o xi c c h e mi c al s m a y c a u s e

ot h er e n vir o n m e nt all y r el at e d di s e a s e s

— s u c h a s e m p h y s e m a, p n e u m o c o ni osi s, a n d h y p ert e n si o n — a n d t h e i n cid e n c e of t h e s e di s e a s e s, a s a r e s ult of

e n vir o n m e nt al f a ct or s, m a y b e m or e

T h o s e w h o p r ofit ar e n ot t h e

s a m e a s t h o s e w h o p a y t h e

c o st, eit h e r e c o n o mi c all y or

wit h t h eir h e alt h a n d li v e s.

wi d e s pr e a d t h a n t h e i n ci d e n c e of e n ­

vir o n m e nt all y i n d u c e d c a n c e r. B ut t h er e

i s n o s u c h t hi n g a s a " sli g ht " c a s e of

c a n c e r — a s i s s o m eti m e s r ati o n ali z e d

i n t h e c a s e of ot h e r e n vir o n m e nt all y i nd u c e d di s e a s e s.

A ut h oriti e s h a v e e sti m at e d t h at a ppr o xi m at el y 8 0 % of all c a n c e r s ar e e nvir o n m e nt all y c a u s e d. I n 1 9 7 5, 6 6 5, 0 0 0

U S. citi z e n s w er e di a g n o s e d a s h a vi n g

c a n c e r, a n d 3 7 5, 0 0 0 di e d of c a n c er — a

r at e of 1, 0 0 0 p e o pl e e a c h d a y. T o t hi s

fi g ur e c a n b e a d d e d a c o n s er v a ti v e e stiDr. S h er m a n i s b ot h a pr of e s si o n al c h e mi st

a n d a m e di c al d o ct or. S h e c urr e ntl y h ol d s t h e

p o siti o n of Cli ni c al A s si st a nt Pr of e s s or i n t h e

D e p art m e nt of O n c ol o g y at W a y n e U ni v er sit y

i n D etr oit a n d i s A dj u n ct A s s o ci at e Pr of e s s or

i n t h e D e p art m e nt of L a b or E d u c ati o n of t h e

S c h o ol f or W or k er s. U ni v er sit y of Wi s c o n si n.

S h e h a s s er v e d a s a c o n s ult a nt t o H ar v ar d

U ni v er sit y, t h e W. E. U pj o h n I n stit ut e f or E mpl o y m e nt R e s e a r c h, a n d NI O S H. a n d s h e c urr e ntl y s er v e s a s a m e m b er of t h e E n vir o n m e nt al Pr ot e cti o n A g e n c y’ s T o xi c S u b st a n c e s

A d vi s or y C o m mitt e e.
If you are a black male living in the San Francisco Bay Area, Alameda County, or Detroit, your

chance of developing cancer is greater than that of any other person living in any other area except for an African living in Bulawayo, Rhodesia.

mate of 390,000 new cases of occupa ­

tionally related disease each year, with 

100,000 reported deaths. Allowing for 

some overlap between these two sets of 

figures, we can estimate a yearly healthcare burden of more than one million 

sick citizens and nearly half a million 

deaths each year from cancer and other 

environ mentally related diseas es — 

many of these illnesses and deaths 

caused by exposure to toxic chemicals 

The death toll alone is greater than the 

combined number of Americans killed in 

World War II, Korea, and Viet Nam.

If indeed a large number of these ca ncers and other diseases are caused by 

environm ental agents, then at least 

some of this illness is preventable Concerned scientists are increasingly co ming to regard cancer not solely as a 

medical condition but also as a social 

disease, requiring at least equal, if not 

greater, efforts toward prevention than 

toward finding cures. Unfortunately, with 

certain exceptions, the persons in a 

position to make decisions that would 

help to prevent ca ncer are not the same 

as those affected by cancer and other 

environmentally related diseases This 

disparity is a problem when "cost-benefit analysis" is applied to the problem of 

toxic chemicals and human disease. For. 

when the problem is reduced to ec onomics, those who profit are not the 

same as those who pay the cost, either 

economically or with their health and 

lives.

Among five continents, eight areas in 

the United States rank in the first ten 

areas having the highest incidence of 

cancer. In the first lour of these ten 

areas, black males have the highest 

cancer rates, and three of these four 

areas are in the United States Thus, if 

you are a black male living in the San 

Francisco Bay area. Alameda County, or 

Detroit, your chance of developing cancer is greater than that of any other person living in any other area except for an 

African living in Bulawayo. Rhodesia 

Can it be that our black citizens are in 

truth fod der for our econom ic machinery?

Decisions to manufacture and distribute certain toxic chemicals, to place additives in food, and to control pollution 

emissions are not made by workers, 

community residents, or consumers Indeed. most of us are exposed to toxic 

chemicals without our knowledge or

Health care for Americans

may, at a conservative

estimate, cost from $1 50

billion to $ 200 billion in

19 80, up from $ 30 billion in

1965.

consent. Of special note is the fact that 

many carcinogens are also mutagens 

and teratogens. The unborn invariably 

are affected without their consent.

In 1974, when Henry Falk reported 

the increased incidence of liver cancer 

in vinyl chloride workers, the U S. was 

producing 4.4 billion pounds a year or 

25% of the world production of that 

chemical. Vinyl chloride was at that time 

touted as "ine rt,'' and it was included in 

thousands of consumer products. Yet if 

this carcinogen had caused mainly lung 

cancer, rather than the rare liver angiosarcoma, the risk might never have been 

discovered.

Peter F. Infante's work, presented in 

March 1975, revealed a statistically significant increase in children bom with 

congenital malformations in three communities where vinyl chloride was produced. Earlier work by him reported 

higher fetal death rates in wives of vinyl 

chloride workers. Allan Ducatman and 

Francisco Funes-Craioto, in separate 

studies, showed chromosomal aberrations in vinyl chloride workers, supporting findings of congenital malformations 

and cancer in these families.

How are we to calculate the cost of 

these exposures?

To my knowledge, the cost of raising 

a malformed or retarded child has not 

been calculated in terms of dire ct medical costs and losses to family and community. In cas es where the fetus 

perishes, of course the co st of caring for 

the child is averted. But the economic 

and emotional costs of the pregnancy 

remain uncalculated.

A "few " miscarriages and a "few" deformed or mentally retarded children 

melt into the background, as does a 

"s light" increase in lung or breast 

cancer The effect of vinyl chloride, mixed in thousands of consumer products 

and spread over the entire population, 

cannot be measured. We can only point 

to evidence of increased cancer rates 

among beauticians and paint workers, 

who are routinely exposed to vinyl 

chloride.

Ta kin g into acc ou nt that vinyl 

chloride was used to power millions of 

cans of pesticides, many of which are 

themselves carcinogenic, how can we 

calculate the effect of these com bine d

exposures? When people are routinely 

exposed to asbestos in the home, at 

school, and at work; to food dyes in 

cookies, cakes, and soft drinks; to saccharine in foods, tooth pastes, and 

mouth washes; to vinyl chloride in plastics and sprays; to solvents in marking 

pens; to benzene and dibromoethylene 

in gasolines; to chromium and cadmium 

in paints; and to chlorinated pesticides, 

how can we pinpoint the effect of a 

single exposure? The list of chemicals 

to which we are exposed inadvertently 

and without our knowledge is almost 

limitless. Yet it is important to note that, 

of the 300,000 chemicals in our environment, 300 of them are known to cause 

cancer. Certainly, eliminating exposure 

to these 300 chemicals should not be an 

insurmountable task.

A National Cancer Institute study of 

patients hospitalized in private institutions for cancer care found costs of approximately $90 per day for hospital 

charges alone. This estimate did not include charges for physicians; out-patient costs; charges for drugs, dressings. and appliances; charges for nursing and physical therapy; or the cost of 

custodial nursing home care. Each pa-
116

People are routinely exposed to asbestos in the home, at school, and at work; to food dyes in

cookies, cakes, and soft drinks; to saccharin in foods, tooth pastes, and mouth washes; to

vinyl chloride in plastics and sprays; to solvents in marking pens; to benzene and

dibromoethylene in gasolines; to chromium and cadmium in paints; and to chlorinated

pesticides.

tient required an average of 20 days of 

care

Yet within two years of diagnosis, 

45% of these patients had lost their 

lives. Contrary to the message given in 

many American Cancer Society advertisements. the survival rate for persons 

with cancers other than skin cancer has 

improved very little over the past 50 

years. Seventy-seven percent of all lung 

cancer victims are dead within a year of 

diagnosis, and only 8% survive five 

years. Virtually 100% of persons with 

pancreatic and esophagal cancers are 

dead within a year of diagnosis.

A Social Security Bulletin for February 1976 showed a total expenditure for 

health care in 1975 of about $120 billion, up from about $30 billion in 1965 

and up from about $65 billion in 1970. 

Health care for Americans may. at a conservative estimate, cos t from $150 to 

$200 b illion by 1980 Given the latency 

period of from ten to 40 years from the 

time of exposure to a carcinogen and 

the expression of the disease, and given 

the increasing number of chemicals in 

the environment, we can expect the 

number of cancer victims and the cost ot 

caring for these people also to increase 

Clearly, the cost of health care will soon 

outstrip our ability to pay lor it. unless 

we can take steps toward prevention of 

this disease.

Nor are the greatest losses suffered 

by person, family, and community the 

dire ct costs attributable to medical 

care We must also consider loss of income. loss of future earnings, elimination of workers with skills and experience, costs of transportation to receive 

care, the burden of care to members of 

the family and the community, and finally 

death costs. These costs are borne not 

only by the person and family involved 

but also by the population at large in 

terms of higher insurance rates and increased costs of production, which are 

passed on to the consumer in the form of 

increased prices.

Attempts to conduct "cost-benefit 

analysis" of chemicals and chemically 

induced diseases are fraught with problems. For example, in 1974, at the time 

of the discovery of the carcinog enicity 

of vinyl chloride and the action by OSHA 

to lower the limit of exposure, the Society of the Plastics Industry commissioned the firm ol A D. Little to make a study 

of the economic impact of reducing exWe can e stima te a yea rly

he alth-care burden of more

than one million sick citizens

and nearly half a million

deaths each year from cancer

and othe r environmentally

relate d diseases.

posures The study predicted widespread economic disaster and loss of 

millions of jobs But this did not occur 

once the lower exposures were set 

On the other side of the equation we 

have questions such as: What values 

should be placed on human life, illness, 

and suffering? How should cases be 

judged when benefits accrue to some 

but risks accrue to others? How reliable 

are estimates ot the cost o f undertaking 

control measures, when these estimates 

are largely based on information supplied by the industry to be regulated? 

How accurately can regulatory agencies and industries assess the benefits 

to society that may result from continued manufacture of a given product? 

Is any product really necessary tor a 

"better life," if it may ultimately make life 

intolerable or even impossible?

To a corporation, the cost of control 

measures will be taken out of profits unless production can be increased to 

compensate The cos t of eliminating a 

product is reflected in money already 

spent for research, development, pro ­

duction. advertising, and distribution, 

the cost of storing and /or disposing ot 

stocks on hand, and the loss of potential 

profits.

But the costs to society of not eliminating a toxic substance are incalculable

In the United States labor force, the 

corporate class represents about one 

percent of the population. The upper 

middle class of professionals and small 

business operators represents an additional 19%. This 20% of the population, 

in large measure, controls the health and 

destinies of the remaining 80%. It is no 

wonder then that blacks and the poor 

are those most affected by cancer and 

occupationally related diseases, and 

that it has taken so long for even the first 

steps toward remedying the situation to 

be taken

Those with a say in their health and 

destiny are even fewer in other parts of 

the world, especially in "underdevelop ­

ed areas " We are witnessing the export 

of occupational diseases, notably cancer. to these areas, as health laws in the 

United States are strengthened. The 

push for corporate profits somehow 

makes it possible to manufacture and 

sell dangerous products, such as p esticides, asbestos products, and benzidine-based dyes, abroad, while restric ting their use and manufacture within the 

United States.

Earlier in this centu ry, individ ual 

rights and the rights ol corporations 

were curtailed when widespread measures were instituted to control disease 

By requiring control of sewage, water, 

and food quality and by mass programs 

of immunization and disease segregation. society made great strid es in the 

area of public health. The situation is little different today. But instead of typhoid 

and tuberculosis we face the growing 

problem of cancer, occupationally related diseases, and birth defects.

The responsibility for public health 

lies not so much with the medical profession as it does with engineers, economists. politicians, and business people All of us need to be reminded, however, ot the message of Judge Miles 

Lord, who said. “ It is a sin to kill in the 

name of profit. It is a sin to let people die 

rather than raise a fuss For the word

"sin." we could substitute "uneconomic." Either way. there will be an enormous bill to be paid.
117

cfrtBjps

perrer

ewronmenr

Sula 2610159 Eaa Van Buren Steal Z Oticago. Bnus 60605

The following CBE Reports published in May are available from CBE's headquarters

in Chicago. Please enclose check made payable to "CBE" to cover printing and

postage

CBE-7864 The Health Hazards ot Nu-Earth Fertilizer, 21 pp. $2 .00

A report by Dana J. Davoli, Ph D.. CBE Staff Biochemist, on the

health hazards of using sewage sludge on gardens because of

high concentrations of cadmium and organic toxins.

CBE-7865 Nuclear Pow er Plant Evacuation Plans, 31 pp. $3.00

A report by Peter G. Cleary. M. A. (Cantab.). CBE Staff Physicist,

on the failure of federal and state agencies to develop emergency evacuation plans in communities close to nuclear power

plants

CB E-7866 Eltects on Plants ot Sullur Pollutants from Coal $5.00

Combustion, 53 pp.

A report by Wayne T. Williams. PhD., CBE Staff Plant

Pathologist, describing experiments showing that sulfur pollutants are injurious to many important agricultural crops, to forests. and to lower plant and animal forms. Sulfur dioxide is highly toxic to plant life, even at levels lower than the current federal ambient air standard. 

h mvtonmenra i

is published monthly by Citizens tor a Better

Environment, s Not for Profit Corporation

Offices

CHICAGO: Suite 2610

59 East Van Buren

Chicago. Illinois 60 60 5

3 1 2-0 39 -1 96 4

(Research: 31 2 -0 39 -1 53 0)

MADISON: 2 West Mifflin

Madison. Wisconsin 537 03

6 0 8-2 51 -2 80 4

MILWAUKS Suite 502

53 6 West Wisconsin Avenue

Milwaukee. Wisconsin 532 03

4 1 4 - 271-74 75

NEW YORK: Suite 425

25 Broad Street

New York. New York 10004

21 2 -4 2 5 -3 5 5 3

SAN Suite 600

FRANCISCO: 88 First Street

San Francisco. California 941 05

4 1 5 - 777-19 84

WASHINGTON: Suite 203

1302 18th Street. NW .

Washington. D C. 20036

20 2-2 23 -6 27 4

DE KALB: 32 3 E. Lincoln Highway

De Kalb. Illinois 6011 5

81 5 -7 5 8 -1 6 8 4

Membership in CBE ($15 a year) includes a

free subscription to the CBE Environmental

Rev iew end is tax deductible

Editor: Flora Johnson

Circ ulation Mana ger: Pat Treanor

Des ign Con sultants: Goldsmith Yamasaki

Specht Inc
118

Mr. Ryan. Ms. Esther Marks, League of Women Voters. Anyone 

here to speak for the League of Women Voters ?

Ms. Edger. Ms. Marks told me that the San Francisco League 

does not intend to testify. I ’m Elva Edger, from the bay area league.

Mr. Ryan. All right. Would you like to testify ?

Ms. Edgar. Perhaps I might give you some copies-----

Mr. Ryan. Give your name to the reporter.

[Witness sworn.]

STATEMENT OF ELVA EDGER, PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN 

VOTERS OF THE BAY AREA

Ms. Edger. I am Elva Edger, speaking for the League of Women 

Voters of the Bay Area, which represents 23 local leagues with almost 

5,000 members.

The league has both followed and been involved in formation of the 

environmental management plan. And we have participated in the 

efforts to acquaint local jurisdictions and individuals with the planning in its various stages. This is over at least a 2-year period.

The planning process has been successful in increasing awareness 

of concerns th at transcend municipal boundaries, a good step toward 

beginning to make decisions that are in the regional interest.

Our recent letter to the California Air Resources Board briefly 

states our current evaluation of plan. And I would like to read a 

portion of it.

The League * * * generally supported the December 1977 version of the 

Environm ental Management Plan. However, this has been gradua lly weakened 

during the last six months through the successive actions of the various reviewing bodies by deletion from the Air Quality M anagement P lan of all regional land 

use controls. These were designed to lim it costly urban sprawl and improve the 

balance of housing and jobs, to infill existing urbanized areas where sewer and 

water services alre ady exist, and to reduce the number of vehicle miles tra veled. These controls were not replaced with adeq uate alte rnatives. The Plan 

has also been weakened by delegation of most of the effective transp ortation 

controls th at could discourage the use of the single occupant automobile, 

encourage and supp ort public transi t, and reduce vehicle emissions.

Most of these controls are controls tha t could be mainly implemented by local jurisdictions.

We are now concerned th at the compromise strategies in the final Environmental Management Plan will not maintain clean air after 1985-87.

At this time, we support the Bay Area’s Environmental Management Plan 

as a step forward in the Sta te and National effort to achieve fishable, swimmable waters and clean ai r by 1982 or soon therea fter, and then to maintain 

them. But we supp ort strengthening the Pla n to accomplish these goals by:

(a) Reinstating effective transp ort ation controls in the Environmental Management Plan.

And by:

(b) Providing for the restudying of possible land use measures by replacing 

them in the Continuing Plan ning Process section of the Environmen tal Management Plan.

The Clean Air Act Amendments require th at all reaso nable measures be 

taken, in good faith, to ensure compliance with national standard s, in order to 

receive a time extension from 1981 to 1987 for attainme nt of clean air.

We believe tha t without the reinstatement in the plan of the two 

things we mentioned, this requirement has not been met.

Mr. Ryan. Well, thank you very much for your statement.
119

I note, is there any significance to the fact th at the bay area chapter 

is here and not San Francisco ?

Ms. Edger. No. I don’t think so. I talked with Ms. Marks and the 

San Francisco League was just checking to see whether or not it should 

speak.

Mr. Ryan. All right.

Ms. E dger. The bay area league is actually a board, and the members are the members of the local leagues. And we have been in constant contact back and for th with the local leagues.

Mr. Ryan. Well, in view of the hour, I thin k Ms. Edger, I don’t 

have too many more questions. I appreciate your comments. And, 

they’ll be, of course, part of the record.

I note the support o f issues over the years tha t I ’ve been in politics 

in the bay area. And the thorough analysis done by the League of 

Women Voters is probably like no other group, public or private, in 

analyzing issues, and providing some kind of guidance to the public. 

And I think tha t the work tha t you and your colleagues do is extremely important to public affairs.

Mr. Cunningham ?

Mr. Cunningham. I have no questions.

Mr. Ryan. Well, thank you for coming.

Ms. Edger. Thank you.

Mr. Ryan. I f I may, just in closing th is first day, I ’d like to express 

my own concern that our efforts to reshape our environment are so 

fractured. I express public disappointment at the failure of the 

Federal Government itself, to provide positive leadership to people, 

instead of telling them what they can’t d o; and what they must do, in 

the way of spending more money.

I still believe that if the Department of Tr ansportation and HUD 

were to get into the act, there wouldn’t be any need for EPA . I don’t 

think people have just set out to destroy, or to disturb, thei r environment. They did it because Federal policies made it possible, encouraged them to do so. Fede ral policies now attem pt to punish people. I 

guess this is where I disagree with your comment, Ms. Edger, about 

the single-person automobile.

The single-occupant automobile is a kind of freedom, a privacy. It’s 

a personal statement, and a capacity to remain free o f the intrusions 

of others in the course of doing his job, and living his or her own 

life. There is nothing wrong with it at all, except that it tends to 

pollute.

I would far rath er see that same person with a single-occupant automobile riding vertically from the 87th floor of the John Hancock 

Tower down to his job on the 11th floor, thereby getting rid of all the 

objectionable things we talk about. And in the process of which, in 

constructing the Joh n Hancock Tower, we produce a sewage p lant 

that could handle it down to tertia ry treatm ent. We take care of all 

the other problems and the objections we have, and we still leave the 

man, or the woman, her privacy.

The regulations we create are because of, I think, a narrow kind of 

thinking. Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, who is the oil minister for 

Saudi Arabia, told me in Jan uary in Riyadh that by the mid-1980’s 

people in the United States would be stand ing in gasoline lines again,
120

because they did not intend to increase their production to feed 

our insatiable appetite for more oil. And I don’t doubt him a bit.

So tha t by the mid-1980’s one of the effects will be, if we are beginning to be choked by not having enough oil, th at the problem of air 

pollution will take care of itself. There simply won’t be tha t much 

more to blow out the gas pipes. In the meantime, what kind of plan ­

ning have we done, or are beginning to do now, to make th at kind of 

terrible crunch unnecessary.

I guess tha t I wish the league could step beyond the immediate, as 

the Government cannot and be providing more direction for us, more 

suggestions, as they have so often in the past on where we might go 

from here.

Ms. Edger. Could I add a few words-----

Mr. Ryan. Sure. Of course you can.

Ms. Edger [continuing]. Th at is not in my proper statement. 

First of all, as you probably know, the league has always supported 

the E PA standards, and EPA as an organization, or as a Government 

agency.

As Ms. Weinreb said in her statement, the regional level already 

exists. And, the bay area league, since 1965 has supported regional decisions being made in a multipurpose regional agency by directly 

elected representatives.

These are sentences as they were written down here.

Local jurisdictions do not yet see regional planning as, perhaps, 

another aspect of local planning. Jobs will be created in meeting standards. There is, however, a dislocation for people and for the money 

channels durin g changeover. Public education will be a key element 

in implementing this plan. If it’s adopted, it will never be implemented 

unless people want to implement it.

And, just the last word, du ring the past 2 years the bay area league 

has put on a league program, “Clean A ir the Impossible Dream,” and 

a conference on the EMP which was very well attended by both league 

and by various government jurisdictions and individuals—“Jobs in 

the Environment.” No, that one was, “Who Decides ? Who Pays?” The 

next one coming up, we hope, will be on jobs and the environment. So, 

we are tryin g to look, think, and plan ahead.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you very much.

Th at concludes the hearing for today. We will reconvene the hearing tomorrow morning at 10, in this room. The subcommittee is 

adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Saturday, Jun e 24,1978.]
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN—

SAN FRANCISCO

SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 1978

H ouse of Represen tativ es,

E nv iron me nt, E nergy, 

and Natur al Resources Subc ommit tee

of th e C om mitte e on G ove rnment Oper ations,

San Francisco, Calif.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, a t 10 a.m., in courtroom 

No. 12, Federal Office Building and Court House, San Francisco, 

Calif., Hon. Leo J. Ryan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Leo J. Ryan and John E. (Jac k) Cunningham.

Also present: Norman G. Cornish, staff director; David A. 

Schuenke, counsel; Dan Cook, chief investigator; and Thomas G. 

Morr, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations.

Mr. Ryan. The subcommittee meeting will come to order. This is 

the second day of hearings on the question of the environmental 

management plan for the San Francisco Bay area which has been put 

together by the Association of Bay Area Governments, otherwise 

known as AB AG.

This hearing is the first—that is, this hearing is to examine into 

what has been done so far to develop an environmental management 

plan, because it is the first in the country to reach this point where 

some specific action is taken which will then, in turn , trig ger other 

actions by statements made about the Federal Government to clean 

up the air and the w ater in concurring with, or following, the legislation passed in recent years on the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act and the Clean Air Act.

The chief concern tha t we have has to do with the degree to which 

local government participates in, and in effect controls, the development of a plan. I think it’s un fortunate that it’s possible under this 

plan for Federal and State officials to completely dominate, and in 

effect, dictate how local governments will act.

I think th at tha t kind of legislation is extremely unhealthy and sets 

an extremely unhealthy precedent, and as a consequence, this hearing 

is to examine the matter for, not just the San Francisco Bay area, but 

for other metropolitan regions including the Sacramento area, the 

Los Angeles area, the San Diego area, and on a national basis, anywhere in the country where we have these management plans being 

developed according to the law.

(121)
122

It may ve ry well be th at there is a need fo r fu rt her leg islation to 

lim it—to define the lim its of the Fe de ral and State roles, because 

it i s certa inly no t the inten t of t he leg islation, as I rea d th e con gression al intent, to tak e away fro m local governm ent any of its powers, 

any of its pre rog atives . In fac t, the Fe de ra l and State governm ent s’ 

powers are s imply to encourage—to nudge if you will—the loca l governments int o wo rking together to pro duce th ei r own pa rticul arly 

tailor ed p lan which fits their need. T hat’s why we are here, to see wh at 

the problem s are, to see wh at might be done to m ake the laws better, 

and to define to St ate and Fe de ral officials wha t may have been congres sional intent when the leg islation was passed.

Our first witn ess is Mr. M ark Pisano, the executive director of the 

South ern Ca lif ornia Ass ocia tion of Gover nment s (S CA G). It is no rmal in proceedings of this kind fo r th e Com mittee on Government 

Opera tions, whi ch is an inv estig ati ve com mittee and subcomm ittees, 

to swe ar in witnesses who te stify b efo re the committee. So, fo r those 

of you who aren ’t aw are o f t he p rac tice, I ’ll giv e you th at notice now.

[W itness swo rn.]

Mr. Ryan. Wou ld you give yo ur name fo r the record?

STATEMENT OE MARK PISANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

Mr. Pisano. M y n ame is M ark Pisano , the executive d ire ctor of the 

So uth ern Califo rn ia Associa tion o f Gov ernments. Mr. Ch air ma n, and 

members of the committee, I wa nt to th an k you fo r th e op po rtu nity 

to testi fy before you tod ay on item s of gr ea t inter est to ou r region. 

Tha t region is the six- cou nty are a of sou the rn Ca lif or nia inc ludin g 

Ve ntu ra, Los Angeles, Orang e, Riv erside , Sa n Be rnardino , and Im ­

peria l Counties. Ou r association includes 136 cities. We cover 38,000 

square miles, an d there’s a po pu lat ion of ove r 10 millio n peo ple fo r 

whom we pe rfo rm the tran sp or tatio n, ai r qu ali ty, wa ter quality, 

gro wth m anagem ent, and ho using pla nn ing.

Th e major them e of my rem ark s toda y is th e ov errid ing im po rtance of the involve men t of local elected officials i n the policy form ulatio n and imple me nta tion phases o f ou r t rans po rtatio n, ho using , and 

env ironm ent al pro gra ms whi ch are directed by Fe de ral laws and 

resources. I f local gov ernment is n ot gi ven th e op po rtu nity to p ar tici ­

pa te in policy develop men t an d im ple me nta tion strate gie s, then Fe dera l prog rams in thes e areas can nev er achieve th ei r fu ll poten tial. 

Successful local involve men t includes a vested inter est in the im ­

ple me nta tion of a p lan t hat bes t m eets local as well as na tio na l needs. 

Th ere mu st be a rec ognition o f both type s of needs. I f regional, St ate , or 

Fe de ral ma ndate s fail to include local invo lvem ent, imple me nta tion 

will be resiste d, if fo r no oth er reason th an the lac k of a local 

constitu ency.

I ’d lik e t o describe tod ay ho w we a re developing t hat local involvement, whi le at the same tim e rec ogniz ing the ov errid ing natio nal 

policies un de r whi ch we ope rate. One im po rtan t po int is th at any 

resources th at come to the asso ciation are only pa rtia lly expend ed 

by ou r or ga niza tio n; in the case of the Fe de ral aid prog ram, fo r 

example, 75 per cent of the fu nd in g was allo cated to th e mem ber 

agencies th ro ug h ou r subregions pa rtic ip at in g in the pl an ni ng p roc-
123

ess. Therefore, they are doing much of the work. They are preparing 

a great deal of the plan or plans which we’ll be adopting.

Our goal is the establishment of a process whereby all the local 

governments in our region—and as I mentioned there are a large 

number of them, making the task extraordinarily complex—can participate in a regional decisionmaking process. One aspect is the 

establishment of a committee process. Our association has a citizens 

committee whereby all of the interest groups involved in our environmental management program can participate. We have, in addition, 

what we call a program committee. There are many implementing 

agencies that are going to need to participate in the development of 

the plan as well as the implementation of that plan. They sit on what 

is called a program committee and they are involved in the management of the 208 program.

There is also a policy committee, which is composed solely of elected 

officials. I t is at the policy committee level tha t the trade-offs between 

air quality, water quality, transportation , and growth management 

are made. Tha t policy committee gives its general recommendations 

to the executive committee of the association.

Another critical element in the development of our plan and the 

adoption of the plan will be the method through which it will be 

adopted. We’ve established a mechanism whereby the plan will be 

reviewed a t least twice, and in some cases three times by all of the 

affected jurisdictions in our region. Ultimately, the plan will be approved by those jurisdictions before its adoption by our executive 

committee. In tha t review and approval process, in the event that 

there are any basic and fundamental disagreements with the plan, 

we’ve established an appeals process whereby those disagreements 

can be reviewed by our policy committee before recommendations 

are made to the executive committee. At that point, efforts to negotiate are undertaken; the differences will be resolved, and if they 

can’t be resolved those differences will be brought forward to the 

executive committee. So, at the time the executive committee adopts a 

plan, it will be reviewing a plan tha t first has been in large part 

prepared by local governments, our members; second, a plan that’s 

been reviewed and approved by them; third, any disagreement that 

affected parties might have with the plan will have gone through 

a conflict resolution process. At tha t point in time, it’s our expectation 

tha t the executive committee will have the best reading of what’s 

achievable in our region from the point of view of how it will affect 

our members, while at the same time recognizing the policy guidelines and objectives that the Federal and State governments, have 

set out.

The process tha t EP A has established in thei r water quality management process, we feel, does provide an excellent opportunity to 

have the local, State, and Federal partnership developed in the adoption of the plan. And, it is upon this last point that I ’d like to describe one other element which has been developed by the region 9 

office. It’s called the program review board. As we go through the 

preparation and the adoption of our plan, we, on a monthly basis, 

sit with the State agencies involved—the air resources board, the 

water quality control board, and the office of planning and research—
124

as well as the Federal agencies involved—mainly EPA, but there 

are also Department of Transportation officials tha t sit on this board— 

reviewing the progress of our plan, providing us comments and inputs. 

And, it ’s my expectation and the expectation of our executive committee tha t at the time our plan is adopted, we will have the full 

benefit of the State and Federal viewpoints. If we do not have the 

full extent of those viewpoints and if we adopt a plan in conflict 

with Federal and State policies—which I don’t expect to happen— 

in many respects I think it would politically be very difficult for 

us to maintain or implement tha t plan at the local level. So, it ’s just 

as important to have the Federal and State input into our adoption 

proceedings as it is to have the inputs of our local members.

Not all of the programs and policies under which we operate 

have the same sensitivity to local involvement as do the 208 and 

the air quality process, and I ’d like to mention just a few of those. 

EP A has what we think is an excellent record through its promulgation of a set of regulations on April 25, 1978, which establish 

population projections for sizing of treatment facilities. These population projections are developed by the Department of Commerce— 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis to be specific. They are provided 

to States who are then directed to use these population projections 

in a disaggregated way to size sewage-treatment facilities. The utilization of those population projections, given the effect they have on 

the sizing of treatment facilities, is tantamount to overriding any of 

the policy considerations that might come up through a water quality 

management process. We are fortunate in this region that E PA region 

9 has established tha t the 208 population projections will be the 

overriding policy projections, and not the BE A statistics. That is 

not the case across the country, and in many instances we have situations where Federal population projections are determining local 

land use and growth policies. In our view, that constitutes a direct 

involvement of the Federal Government in what is essentially a local 

prerogative. The Department of Energy in the establishment of its 

State conservation and energy management program likewise is not 

recognizing the role of local policy and input into establishment of 

energy conservation programs. The recent regulations tha t are being 

drafted by the Department say tha t the State government needs only 

to consider existing local planning, but those regulations do not establish a process where local planning and policymaking can be involved in the establishment of our national energy conservation and 

development programs.

The final issue that I ’d like to address is tha t of resources—specifically the impact of proposition 13 on our local programs. The impact definitely will be felt in our programs. There will be a lack of 

local revenues and resources. There’s also the question of how we 

can meet many of the environmental constraints tha t are set out in 

law. One of the options is to come up with more State resources; in 

the same election where proposition 13 was passed, proposition 2 

likewise was passed, which could provide for more local resources. 

There’s also the issue of Federal resources, and the allocation of an 

equitable share of Federal resources to the State of California. There 

have been recent requests from the State, and there have also been 

recent comments from the Federal Government concerning the fiscal 

relationship of both entities.
125

Our analy sis of t he am ou nt of Fe de ral resources going to our envir onme nta l and tran sp or ta tion program s ind icates th at at least our 

region an d ou r St ate are no t ge tti ng an equiv ale nt fa ir sha re of 

reso urces allo cated across the Na tion. For example, in the are a of 

tran sp or ta tio n we received 38 cents back on al l gas ta x do lla rs paid. 

In the a rea of the clean water p rogram , we received about 7.3 percen t 

of the Na tio n’s c lean wa ter gr an ts, an d we hav e a po pu lat ion of 10 

million . Th e point th at I ’d lik e to mak e, Mr. Ch air ma n, is th at if 

equity were involved in the allocation of Fe de ral resources, it would 

go a lon g way towa rd he lpin g to mee t the needs of our area and 

the req uir em ents th at we face un de r Fe de ral an d St ate law. Th an k 

you Mr. Chairma n.

Mr. Ryan. Tha nk you for yo ur inform ative statem ent. Th e firs t 

question I have h as to do w ith th e—on page 5 of yo ur testim ony, w here 

you refe r to E P A prom ul ga tin g reg ula tio ns which give s the Fe de ral 

Gover nm ent the au th or ity to set local po pu lat ion proje ctions fo r the 

sizing of sewage tre atm en t faci lities. Aside f rom th at action itself, how 

fa r can the Dep artm en t of En er gy , or E PA , or Tr an sp or tatio n, or 

anyo ne, in sim ply de claring a regu lat ion an d then mo vin g in and 

taking over and sim ply ta ki ng it away fro m local gov ernme nt? Are 

the re lim ita tio ns as you see it ? Are you concerned about t hat ?

Mr. Pisano. Mr. Ch airm an , as I exp ressed in my comments, we are 

concerned wi th it. Local governm ent is very much concerned wi th 

th at possibility.

Mr. R yan. Do you m ean ad ditio na l le gis lat ion ?

Mr. Pisano. In th at pa rtic ul ar are a of the sizing of sewage tr eatmen t f aci lities, th e c ur re nt sta tu te indic ate s th at the section 208, w ate r 

qu ality m ana gem ent process, shall p rod uce the po pu lat ion pro jec tions 

and the pr iorit ies fo r the constru cti on of sewage trea tm en t works. 

In my view and also in the view of our policymaker s, th at process 

pro vides ample op po rtu ni ty fo r ou r involve men t. In an othe r section 

of the sta tute, section 212 to be specific, it is man da ted th at there be 

a cost-effective deter mi natio n of t he siz ing o f trea tm en t fac ilities and 

th at E P A sha ll prom ulga te reg ulati on s specify ing how they will be 

sized an d w hat p op ulati on proje cti ons shall be used. T hos e tw o sections 

provide a definite p ot en tia l conflict, a nd th at is a conflict we see aris ing 

with the prom ulgatio n of E P A ’s po pu lat ion pro jec tio n regula tions. 

An d furth ermore, in the regu latio ns deali ng wi th po pu lat ion proje ctions un de r 212, the only sta tem ent th at deals wi th 208 is th at State s 

are directed to ta ke into c onsid era tion 208 pop ulation pro jections. Th ey 

are n ot re quire d to take into conside ration the po pulat ion projection s. 

We see th at as a bas ic co ntr ad ict ion in two of E P A ’s reg ula tions. 

An d it ’s also a contr adict ion th at could hav e severe policy an d po litical im pli catio ns fo r the Fe de ral agency.

As I said, we’re plea sed th at in our region the prog ram is being 

imple me nted in a reasona ble way. T hat is not the case, howev er, n ationwide. Recen tly th e executive com mittee of the Na tio nal Ass ocia tion o f 

Re gio nal Councils established a policy position th at they were going 

to appeal to E PA , 0 M B, th e W hite House, and Cong ress to have those 

reg ulati on s review ed and changed.

Mr. R yan. W ha t it comes dow n to is wh eth er it is the req uir em ent 

of t he loca l gov ernme nts to read the Fe de ral law and act them selves, 

or wh eth er the Fe de ral agen cies are to rea d the law and do it them ­

selves for the lo cal g ove rnm ent.

\ 35 -3 95 0 - 79 - 9
126

My own understanding of the law is tha t local government is to 

take action, not the Federal agencies. If there is need to call attention 

to the fact tha t the local governments are not proceeding according 

to legislations’ intent, that’s one thing, but I think tha t there is a distinction here which is perhaps subtle from a distance, but up close for those who are involved in local government.

It can become terribly oppressive, and I think there ought to be some kind of mechanism in here and some kind of comment in the law about 

the necessity for the local government being required to follow the 

law itself and read the law. A city attorney can read th e law as well as a counsel for the Department of Energy. I presume th at’s clear, but 

apparently from what you say and from what I ’ve heard others say here in the bay area, th at needs to be further defined. Would you agree with tha t ?

Mr. Pisano. Yes, I would, partic ularly in the instance of the popula­ tion projection. In land use, the size of communities and the limits of 

communities must be established at the local level. I t’s almost impos­ sible—I won’t say it can’t be done, but i t’s almost impossible—for tha t 

to occur as a direct result of a Federal or a State dictate.

Mr. Ryan. Now would you say tha t tha t policy’s been followed generally in the case of southern California ?

Mr. Pisano. We feel tha t we have an ample opportunity through 

our 208 planning processes to present a plan for the State and Federal 

Government, and th at the process that has been established in region 9 in the State of California gives us an opportunity to determine the best growth plan for our region considering State and Federal mandates. But, at the same time in other regions of the country, such as Atlanta and certain areas of Ohio. The local governments are having 

a very difficult time relating to thei r State governments in the context 

of the sizing regulation dealing with treatment plants. The State 

governments and the EP A regional offices are not recognizing local involvement and the local-State-Federal decisionmaking aspect of the 208 process; for that reason, the National Association of Regional 

Councils adopted the policy position th at I mentioned. I think it is an 

item th at does need to be clarified and probably needs to be clarified legislatively.

Mr. Ryan. OK. One last question. Do you believe th at the members of the various city councils and so on, elected officials, are keeping 

themselves informed about the options and decisions tha t have to be made?

Mr. Pisano. In our process ?

Mr. Ryan. Not the ones you go to the meetings with every month, but the ones you don’t.

Mr. Pisano. We’ve established the process whereby they will be 

informed of the decisions. As I mentioned, our plan will be going to virtually every city council and every county board in our region for 

their review and approval before the executive committee adopts it. 

That’s an extremely difficult and time-consuming process in a region that is as complex, diverse and large as ours. We’ve established a 

mechanism whereby they can be involved. It would be an overstatement if T indicated tha t all of our elected officials will fully understand all the implications of the plan. But the pressures and the time constraints on local elected officials preclude in some instances a complex 

and difficult issue being fully understood.
127

Mr. Ryan. I just wonder what the quality of the communication is, 

because I guess I ’m curious to know whether or not the various city 

councils here in the bay area kept themselves well informed on the 

development of these processes to the point where it was adopted, the 

action was taken by the environmental planning group in adopting 

the plan ?

Mr. Pisano. Mr. Chairman, I can’t speak for the bay area, but I will 

say tha t we have undertaken a process t ha t’s going to provide the 

« opportunity, and because there must be an approval of the plan, it will

also provide some assurance th at there will be a local signoff. I think 

to date it’s been probably one of th e most extensive cooperative efforts 

of developing, reviewing and approving a regional plan that’s been

• undertaken in our region. To that extent, the EP A “regs,” programs, 

and resources which have provided us the opportunity to do this need 

to be complimented. We feel that we have a real opportunity to develop 

a growth management, a water quality, an a ir quality, and a tran sportatio n plan tha t will meet Federal and State needs. Ou r only concern 

relates to the resource implications tha t have been brought about by 

recent events. On tha t score, we do request, not a handout from the 

Federal Government, but an equity from the Federal Government in 

the allocation of resources.

Mr. Ryan. I find your figure of 7.3 percent versus 15.7 percent from 

New York very interesting. I think I ’ll use tha t when my friends from 

New York come around for more help on the bailing out of New York 

City.

Mr. Pisano. Mr. Chairman, we have prepared a more detailed 

analysis of all Federal programs dealing with energy, environment 

and transportation , m terms of resources allocated to other portions 

of the country and to our region, and could provide that to you if it 

would be of interest.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you very much for your appearance here. We 

appreciate it.

Mr. Pisano. Thank you Mr. Chairman. On behalf of our elected 

officials, again, we appreciate the opportunity to bring the interests 

and comments of local government to the Federal Government.

• Mr. R yan. We hate to bring you out on a Saturday, but we missed 

a day of session yesterday as it is, and this is the only way we can get 

it done.

Do we have Mr. John Bryson here?

• [Witness sworn.]

STATEMENT OF PETER A. ROGERS, CHIEF, DIVISION OF PLANNING 

AND RESEARCH, CALIFORNIA STATE WAT ER RESOURCE CONTROL BOARD

Mr. R ogers. Mr. Chairman, my name is Peter A. Rogers, and I ’m 

representing J ohn Bryson, a>nd I ’m chief of th e division of planning 

and research for the California State Water Resource Control Board. 

I didn’t come prepared with any prepared statement other than to respond to the three questions which the committee posed to us in their 

letter to Mr. Bryson, and I ’ll respond to those three questions and anythin g else that you might want to add.

The first question you asked us was basically: What is the State’s
128

role in th is designated 208 area plan ? Th e St ate wa ter reso urce control 

bo ard ac tin g fo r the Gover nor is respon sible fo r ad minist ering sectio n 208 of Pu blic Law 92-500 in Ca lifornia . So fa r, the bo ard has 

desig nated seven 208 area s and agencies in Ca lif ornia, an d is resp on ­

sible f or doing the p lann ing i n t he re st of th e St ate which is no t des igna ted , an d th e board is also respon sible fo r final cer tifi cat ion and 

adoptio n o f the 208 pl ans which w ill be develope d by th e 208 agencies. 

Most o f this activity has been going on fo r the pa st 2 yea rs, and these 

plan s are star ting to be completed . O ver th e next 3 mo nth s, t o give you 

an exa mple of w ha t the activities we w ill have, we’ve received 208 plans 

so fa r fro m the Tahoe R egion al Pla nn in g Agency, Ven tu ra Regiona l 

Sa nitatio n District, t he Comp reh ens ive Pla nn in g Or ga nizatio n o f San 

Diego, A BA G, and we will short ly receive one f rom the Assoc iation of 

Mo nte rey Bay Ar ea Govern ments.

For eac h o f these plan s th e bo ard has sche duled a special workshop, 

a public he aring, and will mak e a decision on these pla ns at a board 

mee ting. W ith rega rd to ABAG’s environme nta l ma nageme nt pla n, 

the b oa rd h eld a special workshop on Jume 12, and we’ve s cheduled a 

public be aring, Ju ly 24, in Sac ram ent o. We expect to make a final 

decision on the AB AG p lan at th e Aug us t 21 bo ard meetin g. I should 

point out th at th e bo ard in ta ki ng its action on ABAG’s environme nta l 

ma nageme nt plan will restric t its conside ration s to the water quali ty 

elem ents of th at p la n ; we wi ll n ot be consider ing th e ai r qu ality or the 

solid waste aspects.

In tak in g action on the se 208 pla ns, the Fe de ral regu latio n b asically 

gives a St ate three choices. One is, we c an ad op t and ce rtify the plan 

as the Sta te ’s wa ter qu ality ma nageme nt plan fo r th at are a, second, 

we can conditionall y ce rti fy the p lan, m ean ing we can rem and it back 

to AB AG an d ask th at certa in th in gs be done withi n a giv en timeframe , or th e t hir d choice, we can b asica lly rejec t the p lan . I f the board 

reje cts the plan, the n th e S tate is resp onsible for doing the 208 pla nn ing 

in t hat are a.

Yo ur second question th at was posed wa s th at , do we believe more o r 

less t hat t he A BA G approa ch was a good one th at pe rhap s sho uld be 

follo wed by other commun ities. I wou ld say th at ABA G in th eir 

process d eveloped and p repa red an integ rated envir onme nta l ma nageme nt plan th at con side red all of the int erface are as betw een wa ter 

qu ali ty, ai r qu ali ty, lan d use, an d solid waste. I t was prep ared , as 

you’re aw are , under the dir ectio n of an advisory bod y whi ch was 

composed of locally electe d officials and special interest groups called 

the envir onme nta l ma nag em ent ta sk force. Th is grou p constituted a 

ra th er hi gh ly visible public forum , and provide d the bas is fo r the 

public pa rticip atio n prog ram in gu id ing this process.

We s up po rt the c oncept of integ rated plan ni ng i n theory, however, 

we a re no t conv inced t hat the app roach is feasible conside rin g prese nt 

insti tutio na l arr angeme nts . Fu rth er mor e, res ults fro m ABAG’s pl an ­

ning efforts ind ica te th at the int erfaces betw een wa ter qu ali ty, air 

qu ali ty, solid waste, and lan d use, may no t be as signif ica nt as once 

believed. We have viewed 208 p lann in g in desig nated areas, basically 

as an un tes ted process, where local gov ernme nts h ave the op po rtu nity 

to influence, in a ra th er dir ect way, envir onme nta l decisionmaking. 

The St ate wa ter resource con trol bo ard following the workshops and 

pub lic he arings t hat I m entioned ove r the n ext 3 months, will have to
129

make, in essence, a judgment as to whether this type of approach works 

in California, and we have not yet made that judgment.

The last question which you asked us to respond to is our opinion 

as to what we thought the impact of proposition 13 m ight be on imlementation of the ABAG plan. According to ABAG’s staff, implementation of the environmental management plan would cost local 

government about $350,000. When the ABAG plan was acted upon by 

their general assembly, this was after proposition 13 was passed, the 

general assembly adopted the plan, but they did insert the following 

disclaimer, and I quote: “The cities and counties of this association, 

because of the impact of proposition 13, reserve th e righ t to postpone 

implementing any provisions in the environmental management plan 

involving additional local expenditure.” I t’s pretty clear, I would 

think, tha t from that, that proposition 13 will definitely have an 

adverse impact on implementation of, not only this plan, but other 

208 plans throughout the State. Probably of greater concern to us is 

the fact tha t local governments in general, now appear to be cutting 

back on services which affect nonpoint sources of pollution such as the 

frequency of streetsweepings, enforcement of local erosion control 

ordinances, and things of that nature. And these are probably the most 

effective things we have in California in preventing this type of a 

pollution. We hate to see that, because abandonment of these services 

by local government may very well bring on regulatory actions from 

the State level, and I think tha t would be unfortunate.

Tha t was the extent of the prepared comments we wanted to make 

in response to the questions you posed, but if there’s anything additional, I ’d be glad to try to respond.

Mr. Ryan. Perha ps I overreact, but I never got over being a city 

councilman and the mayor of a small town called South San Francisco, 

and I ’ve never lost the determination to resist the effort of benignintentioned people at State and Federal level, telling the local folks 

what they will do without sufficient involvement by local people. That’s 

the reason for these hearings. You said tha t local government has an 

opportunity to influence water quality planning. Would you expand on 

tha t a little bit?

Mr. Rogers. The concept under which 208 was established in this 

State was that the th ough t being th at local elected officials, by participating in the process, would in essence develop what you might call an 

environmental conscience, and do what would be the righ t th ing to do 

to abate pollution, and tha t was really the whole idea behind 208, and 

I think-----

Mr. R yan. You determined what is the right thing to do?

Mr. Rogers. Well, that would be determined by your local elected 

officials. Tha t was the idea, that they in working with the State, and 

other agencies, would identify the problems and determine what the 

best solutions could be to those problems, given the practicality of 

economics and social impacts, and so forth. I n concept it’s an excellent 

theory. There’s no question tha t this is an ideal way to operate. I think 

the experience we’ve seen, however, is that it’s difficult, particularly in 

view of say proposition 13, for a local official to adopt actions which 

indeed are going to cost them perhaps money. I think the ABAG 

process, the way it was set up, is probably the best one that we’ve seen
130

involving local officials, and I thin k it was an excellent process. I t was 

well involved by local officials.

Mr. Ryan. You said tha t the abandonment of some local services 

such as street cleaning, might lead to some kind of State activity.

Could you go into that a little further?

Mr. Rogers. It’s possible. I n other words, in talking about nonpoint 

sources of pollution, some of the best means of dealing with tha t 

problem have been the things tha t local governments have been doing 

already, and that is such things as streetsweepings, particularly local 

ordinances involving erosion control; these have been very effective. I •

think it would be difficult for the State, even though they would have 

the authority, to try to step in and conduct those kinds of programs or 

impose individual requirements on developments for erosion control 

and tha t kind of a thing, but as local governments see the need to cut •

back on various services under proposition 13, a problem is created, 

meaning a pollution problem, it is conceivable that the State might 

have to consider at least stepping in and taking some action to prevent 

tha t problem from becoming severe.

Mr. Ryan. So what you’re saying is tha t local city councils decide to 

implement proposition 13 in a way which you don’t see particularly 

satisfactory, and you would step in and reverse the decision ?

Mr. Rogers. No, I wouldn’t say necessarily; tha t’s a possibility. The 

State law requires us, meaning our board, to take certain actions, and 

I think th at would have to be weighed, what impact would th at have, 

how great is the consequence of not conducting these programs, and so 

on and so forth. I think the board would have to consider that, and 

like I said, I think it would be unfortunate i f the State had to get into 

tha t kind of a posture, because I think that’s really something tha t’s 

appropriate for local government to be doing, and we’d hope it would 

continue.

Mr. Ryan. Well, I would certainly urge you to step very cautiously 

there, because I would hate to see the local governments in California 

stirred to the level of wrath that the citizens expressed when they 

passed proposition 13.

They might very well blow you out of the water, as well as did 

proposition 13. I think we have some legislation here which is necessary in the seventies to improve the quality of our environment, but I •

think one of the lessons we’re developing is tha t those who have been 

given authority at the State and Federal level to carry out and implement congressional intent need to step very, very carefully. Or Mr.

Jarvis may decide he’s not finished his work.

Mr. R ogers. I couldn’t disagree at all. In fact, our board is already 

identifying things that it’s doing now, that have financial impact on 

local governments with the idea of how can we lessen that, so they’re 

certainly aware of that.

Mr. Ryan. Mr. Cunningham ?

Mr. Cunningham. No questions.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you very much for being here.

Dr. Marjorie Evans, the member of the air resources board.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. Ryan. Thank you for coming on a Saturday.
131

STATEM ENT OF MA RJOR IE EVA NS, MEM BER , AIR RESOURCES 

BOARD

Ms. E vans. Th an k you, Con gressm an. I t ’s a gr ea t ple asu re to be 

here. I ’m ap pe aring as one member of a board . Th e St ate bo ard , as 

I ’m sure Congressman Rya n knows, is desig nated in th e he alth and 

safety code of the St ate of Cal ifor ni a as an ai r po llu tio n control 

agency f or all purposes set fo rth i n Fe de ral law. And specifically, i t’s 

desig nated as the St at e agency respon sible fo r th e pr ep ar at io n of 

St ate imp lem entation plan s re qu ire d by the Clean A ir Act.

I ’m here at your in vitatio n to give A RB’s view o f the bay are a environm ental ma nageme nt pla n. Fir st , th is give s me an op po rtun ity to 

pa y trib ut e to the people who cre ate d the plan, a sophistica ted and 

com prehensive pla n, a sim ply a ma zin g piece o f wo rk in m y view. Th e 

Fe de ral policy chan ged m ids tre am i n the work of th e plan , b ut ne vertheless, I find it surpr isi ng ly consistent wi th th e C lea n A ir Act am endments. I exp ect the a ir resources b oard, and I belie ve it ’s the expecta ­

tio n of my fellow bo ard mem bers, to sub mit to th e U.S . Env iron ­

me nta l Pr otec tio n Agenc y in 1979, a plan fo r th e bay are a which 

pro vid es fo r com pliance wi th th e Clean Air Act, an d is acc ept able to 

the citizens of t he area. Now, th is p lan has no t ye t been subm itted to 

the ai r reso urces board , so it is im pr op er to com men t in de tail pr io r 

to th e staff analy sis w hic h will b e un de rta ke n on its subm ission to the 

AR B. However, th e A RB sta ff has worked over these many mo nth s an d 

is now wo rking wi th AB AG in the envir onme nta l ma nageme nt task 

forc e, an d is fa m ili ar wi th the pl an an d its wo rking out. I have discussed th e plan and its status with th e staff, an d I can com ment on 

some as pects o f it.

Some cha nge s and ad ditio ns to the plan as it is or was a week or 

two ago will probably be req uir ed. Fir st , it is no t com plete in th at it 

deals wi th ox idan t only, because th at was th e intention an d expecta ­

tio n of th is grou p when it began. Th ere is a need in th is bas in fo r a 

carbo n monox ide and a pa rti cu la te material pla n, an d I ’m tol d 

toda y th at AB AG is wo rking on th at now, an d th at we can exp ect 

th at t o come t o th e staff some tim e in th e fal l. Th e ox idan t plan, I believe, is expected some time with in a month. On th e oxida nt plan as with 

CO and parti cu lates, th e AR B sta ff is wo rking with the M TF staff, 

ma kin g suggestions t hat pre suma bly will br in g i t to a s tate whic h will 

be sa tis factor y to the air reso urces bo ard so th at it c an be certified to 

the E PA . Second, i t may no t m eet the Clean A ir Act require me nts for 

enfor ceability. T he Env iro nm en tal Pr otec tio n Agenc y mak es t he final 

decision on this, bu t the staff believes, an d I share th ei r belief, th at 

reg ulati on s where possible, should be adopted an d inc lud ed in the 

pla n be for e it is sub mi tted to us.

Thi rd , there may no t be sufficient con trols fo r oxides of nitro ge n to 

allow the downwin d bas ins to at ta in and maintain th ei r ai r qu ali ty 

stan da rd s. Specifically, I mea n Mo nte rey , Sa n Jo aq uin Va lley, and 

Sa cra mento Val ley. Fo ur th , the plan may no t conta in sufficient contro ls to demo nstra te ma intenance of th e stan da rd s af te r 1987. I t 

does pro pose a 5 0-perce nt hy drocarb on r eductio n, and th e staff at this 

tim e th inks th at can be attained .
132

The staff, despite the fact that we think there are not sufficient 

controls demonstrated, at present believes that very recent work on 

available controls on stationary sources, work tha t was not available 

at the time the plan was put together, make the plan in its present 

stage conservative. There is ongoing work by the air resources board 

to provide model rules to the various districts and areas in the 

State, to make available the proposed reasonable controls. If the 

staff is correct, namely that the estimates made in the plan are conservative, then it will likely mean th at takin g into account the vehicular controls, the plan will be able to comply with the Clean Air Act 

without the inclusion of land use and transportation improvements 

and controls. This, of course, would make many people in the bay 

area happy, particularly with respect to land use and transportation 

controls.

• Fina lly as to possible deficiencies of the plan, it may not contain 

adequate documentation tha t the various transportation techniques 

which are set forth in the act as being necessary to consider have 

been examined for reasonableness for application, nor as I understand 

it, is there a commitment to study them during the 1979-82 period. Under those circumstances, presumably EP A will find it difficult to 

justify the extension which this basin needs fo r oxidant and carbon 

monoxide beyond 1982. In particular, and of p artic ular interest to me, 

the plan lacks a commitment necessary for the extension improvement 

and expansion of public transit, and it lacks the required commitment 

to use funds for such expansion from Federal, State, and local sources.

Now, from this point on, and in response to your request for comment on proposition 13, what I say represents solely my own views, 

and not necessarily those of my fellow board members. The Clean 

Air Act amendments, which reflect my own preference, call for the 

plan preparation and the selection o f techniques for reducing pollution to be done at the local level. I f a locally developed plan meets the 

requirements of the law, I can’t imagine tha t the board on which I 

serve would substitute its own choices.

Second, I come to an issue which involves the Federal Government, 

specifically, Federal taxation, and the Federal system of matching 

grants to which we have become so accustomed. One of the available 

choices to the bay area for reducing oxidant and carbon monoxide 

would be the improvement of the transportation plan, making an integrated system which would tie together various parts which are 

seven or eight in number. They include Muni, B ART, Southern Pacific commuter line between San Jose and San Francisco, Santa Clara 

Transit, Samtrans, and so forth. This is a very fragmented svstem 

and we desperately need an integration of i t with appropriate interconnections, and the expansion of services to late night, and weekends, 

and holidays. This sort of thin g is available as an option to the bay 

area for its air quality maintenance plan. It would not only greatly 

strengthen the AQMP, and I particularly point out, relieve some of 

the pressure on the stationary sources—the oil companies, and public 

utilities, and others—to reduce th eir pollution, but it would also improve the general livability of the area, quite irrespective of air quality.

It is called for in the act. It is desired by the people. It would 

add jobs in constructing interconnections. It would add operator jobs 

and it would take some of the pressure off the stationary sources. It is
presently included in the plan only in a very attenuated way, and I 

think i t’s appropriate fo r me and for you to ask why this is so, given 

all of the good things in favor of it. I propose to you the answer, and the answer relates to proposition 13. The middle class of which there were a goodly number of repre­ sentatives, both in that E MT F and in the various towns and counties which looked at the plan and voted on it, feel besieged. They feel besieged not just by the property tax, b ut by income taxes, both State and Federal, and especially in my opinion, the Federal income tax. They perceived, correctly, tha t p utting a tra nsportation improvement plan in the SI P would result in the increase of taxes, probably income taxes either State or Federal or both, and they simply weren’t going to put up with it. Moreover, I suspect they felt that if it were put into the plan, the design would probably be federally controlled. Now I, much as I want the bay area to have an expanded and improved public transportation system, am not inclined to expose Californians to the frequently capricious and irrational results of a federally mandated 

tran sit expansion. We need the system. We need to build it with our own money and on our own terms. So in closing, if I can hope to give you a special sense of purpose as you go back to Washington, it would be this. I urge that Congress begin the task of making massive Federal income tax reductions. Speaking for Californians as a Californian, we need the money here in C alifornia to do things tha t need to be done as we see the need, and among those things and high on the list is a good public tran sit system in this area, in Los Angeles and in the Sacramento area. It would assist in all the tasks of decreasing the air pollution. It would make the bay area an even more delightful place to live in. 

Than k you for your time.

Mr. R yan. Thank you for your comments. I don’t understand your 

reasoning. Let’s take this whole business of public t ransit as a solution to the problems of air quality control. The assumption is the basic reason for air quality problems is the automobile and the emissions thereof, and therefore, the best thing to do is to get people out of th eir automobiles and into public transit by expanding public trans it as an alternative in environmental management planning. Wha t evidence 

do you have that after you’ve built it, they’d ride it ?

Ms. E vans. Well one can always take refuge in the proposition tha t 

no one will use it. SP for example, raised tha t question when they 

went to have their commuter service discontinued. I take this position. 

The service in the bay area has never been very good. I t is truly fra g­ mented. It is very difficult to get from one end to the other. When you have a good system as you do in various cities throughout the world, people use it. They use good systems. In the bay area they use the AC 

system which is good in a small portion of the-----

Mr. Ryan. I know San Mateo County better than the rest of the 

bay area, but in San Mateo Countv, it seems like 20 or 30 percent of the families in San Mateo County have three cars, not one or two, but 

three.

Ms. Evans. Th at’s right.
134

Mr. Ryan. You think they’re going to begin getting rid of their 

cars and walking to the station or to the BART ?

Ms. Evans. No, I think they will use the commuter system at a time 

when I consider it appropriate to use it; namely, for routine trips. 

The approach of punitive controls-----

Mr. R yan. Do you think it’s the commuter problem t ha t’s causing 

the pollution ?

Ms. E vans. Yes. I think that punitive controls which forbid people 

to use their cars on Saturdays or on holidays the way we had during 

the gas rationing, I abhor that. People hate it. It’s more important 

tha t they use-----

Mr. Ryan. We all find ourselves out in the street and we find a new 

set of people elected to make the decisions. I ’ll tell you that. I think 

if we did that, we’d find a new set of politicians in office to take care 

of the problem and undo it.

Ms. Evans. So do I, but it is continually proposed. People would 

not find it objectionable, in fact, would find i t very nice to have an 

alternative good transportation system which they could take when 

they were going on routine trips from point A to point B, and then 

have their car without punitive measures available for things where 

flexibility is needed.

Mr. Ryan. Wh at happens i f you build this system and then nobody 

comes, if I can borrow the phrase ?

Ms. Evans. Well, I suppose we can always say that it may not work, 

but if we do that, we do nothing.

Mr. Ryan. You’re talking about the investment of substantial capital funds to build an enormous transportation system around the San 

Francisco Bay area that has among its other peculiar facilities, which 

are very nice to look at, a bay, a body of water smack in the middle 

tha t you’ve got to go around.

Ms. E vans. I ’m not talking about building a new system. I ’m talking about making linkages with systems that already exist, and increasing service. By way of example, we have Southern Pacific which 

is a good commuter railroad. Its service needs to be increased, but 

everybody who rides i t likes it. Bu t can you get from SP to BART? 

You can by a long route involving San Francisco’s Muni buses. There 

is a clear opportunity for an integration of existing pieces, without 

asking for new pieces. Samtrans, Santa Clara County Tran sit, and 

others exist as pieces. We need to think of all of them together as a 

transportation system.

Mr. Ryan. Has your board ever considered the possibility of anything. other than simply bilking the public? This idea of public 

tran sit as an answer to a ir pollution is an interesting one, based upon 

its assumption tha t people will use it. I still have very serious questions about this. Wha t about going in a different direction ?

Have you ever considered such a thing as developing tax benefits, 

in which the State or the Federal Government might develop special 

kinds of incentives for building in the central city? Let’s say penalties would be imposed for construction of industries where there are 

no residential facilities within a reasonable distance so we get people 

out of the need for cars. San Francisco International Airport still 

has hundreds of buses th at arrive every morning from as far away 

as Santa Clara County depositing workers down there.
135

That’s th eir commute. And they do it because it’s cheaper to live 

in housing in Santa Clara County than it is around the airport. Has 

the board ever considered that as an alternative?

Ms. Evans. Th at’s an interesting thin g to discuss. Let me preliminarily pick up a couple of things. I didn’t mean to imply tha t a 

transit system is an answer to air pollution, because it’s not. Improved 

public transportation is one of several alternatives, but additional 

options that can help relieve the pollution reduction load on the 

stationary sources. It’s by no means a panacea. Second, remember 

tha t I don’t speak for the board, I speak for Marjorie Evans righ t 

now.

Addressing your comments, in the end of course, that’s the real 

problem. How to address land use is perhaps the most emotional 

question of the bay area. I thin k myself that sooner or late r the socalled land-use question must be addressed.

I don’t like the way it was addressed in the plan as set forth in the 

beginning. It seemed a rigid and sterile plan. Something like what 

you suggest has much more flexibility and attractiveness. I suspect 

tha t when an attractive and not rigid and sterile plan for land-use 

control can be offered to the people, they’ll go for it.

Mr. Ryan. I think there is a difference between ordering it and 

providing incentives. If you order people to do things they don’t 

want to do, you’re going to get nothing b ut trouble, and we’re going 

to get nothing but trouble.

On the other hand, we can create incentives that allow people to 

go where they want to go, which is how we got into this problem in 

the first place. The incentive 35 years ago was, “get out in the country, get out of the mission district and move out in the country, move 

out to Daly City, move out to Millbrae, move out to Walnut Creek, 

get out of the city, get out there where there are trees,” and they all 

did.

We all did, and now we’re out there blowing gasoline all the way, 

and i t’s causing us a terrible problem, and we’re trying to resolve that 

by tellin g them to get out of their cars now that they’re out there, 

and it’s crazy.

Ms. E vans. Congressman, I agree with everything you’ve said.

Mr. Ryan. Well, then what about this—you said that there might 

need to be a federally mandated transit system. Am I correct?

Ms. Evans. That’s not quite what I said, and I will try to explain 

more carefully what I mean. Local people fear Federal mandates. 

The Federal Government is like the camel. Let it’s nose under the 

tent, and sooner or late r it will take over the tent. So, they fear th at 

if they put into the plan, that they would consider and put into 

effect and make use of Federal, State, and local funds, for an improved transportation plan, the next thing you know either the State 

of California, or more likely the Federal Government will come 

tromping into the tent. The next thing would be a mandate to spend 

local funds th e way the Clean A ir Act says by the Federal and State 

people. See HUD and see HE W activities for example.

Such a result is perceived by what is now a very sophisticated citizenry to mean two things. It means t hat the taxes will go up some 

more to accommodate this mandated program. It means further dictation of design by Federal people. Again, see HU D and HE W pro-
136

grams for examples and experience. That has been the reasoning 

tha t they went through, and I think the people are probably right.

Mr. Ryan. I sense a kind of reasoning tha t requires the Federals 

saying to the State “All right, we’re asking you to do this for us;” 

tha t is, clean up the air and the water. The State turns around and 

says to the local government, “OK, we’ve been told to move, and we’ve 

been told to get you to move and clean up your own act.” Im plicit in 

tha t is, “I f you don’t do it, we’ll do it for you.” I think th at’s exactly 

what the a ir resources board is there for and what it’s saying.

But it comes down to cost. I f there is any kind of mandate for completion of a tran sit system, and I use that only as an example, you can 

mandate anything else you want, and it comes down to where it’s 

actually ordered, who’s going to pay ? Is it your understanding tha t 

the Federals will be paying for it, or will the local folks be required 

to pay for it?

Ms. E vans. I believe the act reads tha t they shall use fundings for 

such expansion from Federal, State, and local sources. The Federal 

sources are often matching grants, and that’s the hook th at a lot of 

cities and counties are on now. They’re committed for things t ha t they 

didn’t really want all that much.

Mr. R yan. The reason I asked the question is because I remember 

very well, having been in the legislature for 10 years, from 1962 to 

1972, the number of times we gathered up the sack and dumped in $300 

or $400 million in cash and sent it down to the bay area to pump up 

BART, and even just to complete it on a kind of a one-time, throw ­

away basis.

And I go back again to the costs that are estimated for whatever 

system we come up with in this environmental management plan. 

We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars at the very time 

we’re also talking about proposition 13 and the clear order of the 

people of this State and I think one can say a pretty good chunk of 

the Nation in a national sense: “You’re spending too much, don’t do it.” 

At the very time they’re also saying “Clean up air and water,” and the 

interpretation of tha t is up to anybody, including the air resources 

board.

But I would think it would certainly deserve consideration and a 

degree of caution when you talk about, not just how much money 

we’ve spent, but where it’s to be spent. Who’s going to spend it ? Is it 

local money, is it State money, is it national money ?

It seems to me if the air resources board is going to comment on the 

one in the bay area, the one in southern California, the one in San 

Diego, the one in Sacramento, it ought to also spell out if there are 

disagreements. If it says in effect, this plan is not acceptable for these 

reasons, pa rt of the commentary ought to include where the money 

is to come from.

Ms. E vans. Yes, I agree with you, Congressman. Can I elaborate a 

little bit on that, because to me that’s the heart of the matter?

Mr. Ryan. Sure, please do. It ’s terribly important.

Ms. Evans. I indicated and I now want to emphasize that whereas 

I think th at an integrated transportation system would be very helpful, I suspect tha t if it comes to voting on it in the air resources board, 

I will vote against it, and the reason I will vote against i t is th at the 

institutional interconnections and the tax situation are such that I
137

simply will not be responsible for putting an added tax burden on the people. Also, I do not wish to have a federally designed system. I believe the citizens in great m ajority in the bay area would really like to have an integrated public tran sit system with good interfaces and expanded service. It’s something they would welcome spending money on were they not spending too much money in taxes already. So, there is absolutely no way transit expenditures will be supported by the people until there is a massive, massive reduction in taxes, and that, of course, means State and Federal income tax. The people p er­ ceive, as I hear them, tha t the ir Federal tax money in particula r is being spent on things which they just don’t thin k are worthwhile. They also think tha t the Government is inefficient and it’s wasteful. When tha t can finally be addressed, and taxes substantially reduced, say by 50 percent, then I th ink we will find ourselves returned to times, like those of the early sixties and fifties, when people willingly and knowingly voted taxes on themselves to do local things. So, I can’t say that we’re going—I truly am not suggesting that we do this now, 

10 years from now maybe.

Mr. Ryan. One last question. Do you think the goals of the Clean Air 

Act are unrealistic?

Ms. Evans. Are they what, sir ?

Mr. Ryan. Unrealistic?

Ms. Evans. I think that they’re-----

Mr. Ryan. We’ve spent 35 years to get this dirty. Can we clean it up 

in 5 or whatever ?

Ms. Evans. Yes, with a few exceptions. I ’m afra id tha t the south coast is an exception, and sooner or later we’ll have to face that 

question.

Mr. R yan. Thank you very much for your testimony. It’s been very 

helpful.

Ms. Evans. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Ryan. Than k you for being here. May we have the Environmental Protection Agency next? Mr. 

James Smith and Mr. Paul DeFalco ?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. Ryan. If you would give your name for the reporter?

STATEMENT OF JAMES N. SMITH, SPECIAL ASSISTANT. WATER

AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL DeFALCO, JR., REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION IX , EPA

Mr. Smith. I am James N. Smith, Special Assistant to the Assist­ ant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. DeFalco. I am Paul DeFalco, Jr., the regional administrator 

of region IX for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Ryan. In either order, however you choose.

Mr. Smith. Well, we’ll give the headquarters perspective first, and then go into the regional perspective, which may be much more to the 

point. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I first want to convey Mr. Jor ling’s apologies. He would have liked to have been here
138

today. He is unable to make it, and he wanted you to know tha t he 

was sorry he couldn’t be here.

The water quality management planning program under section 

208 provides State and local governments with the mechanism to develop controls for point and nonpoint sources of water pollution.

Using the water quality management incentive and assistance, State 

and local governments develop and carry out long-range strategies 

defining 1983 water quality goals for an area, and they define control 

measures for both point and nonpoint sources to achieve these goals.

Now since the 208 legislation was passed, 176 areawide 208 agencies •

across the country have been or are being funded. There are 49 

States in the United States tha t are involved actively in 208 planning.

We have dispersed approximately 100—$216 million in Federal grants.

Most of those are 100-percent grants, although the more recent ones •

are 75 percent matching. The water quality management program 

has been evolving over these last few years into a more sophisticated 

program, as we get a better understanding of the complex water 

quality problems and the activities required to establish integrated 

management programs.

The focus of the program has shifted and expanded from early 

expectations tha t all water quality problems would be addressed in 

the initial planning period to a heavy emphasis on addressing priority 

problems and developing control programs which can be carried 

out. From an early emphasis on areawide water quality planning, 

we have expanded the State role and better defined the relationships 

between State and areawide efforts. Over the past 2 years, EP A has 

concentrated on providing more detailed direction to the program, 

both on a substantive and a procedural level. We have increased our 

emphasis on implementation and the importance of public involvetnent, and we are beginning to see products from the program.

Although the program has not completely fulfilled its original 

expectations, I think major progress has been made. There have been 

many successful problem-solving efforts throughout the country, 

and we are just beginning to see the fruits of some of those. State 

and local governments, with our assistance, have examined specific 

water quality problems and implemented controls to address those 

problems. Successful efforts, including adoption of State and local 

ordinances and regulations for point and nonpoint source controls, 

have resulted in significant cost savings for facility construction 

through regionalizing. Savings have also resulted from balancing 

nonpoint source controls against very costly advanced waste treatment options, where nonpoint source controls would result in greater 

improvements in water quality at a lower cost.

Major program objectives over the next 5 years to meet the national 

goals of fish able, swimmable waters are: To control point source and 

nonpoint source pollution, to have construction g rant money through 

cost-effective mixes of structural and nonstructural controls: to build 

and to strengthen State and local institutional capabilities for water 

quality management; to foster an involved public consistency; and 

to address the very complex u rban environmental problems that surround all these.

To support these major problems objectives, EP A has developed 

some long-range program directions in funding and management.
139

The funding strategy has identified program needs throu gh fiscal 

year 1983. Four national priority problem areas will be fund ed: Nonpoint sources, selected facility planning, pretreatment, and urban 

stormwater. The emphasis in funding is to tackle those problems 

with major water quality impacts which we think are solvable.

The program strategy sets out major policy and management initiatives, including integrating Federal, State, and local water pollution control efforts to attain and maintain the 1983 water quality goals.

I should add, to integrate the local effort as well, bringing the State 

more fully into the process. Each State must coordinate with areawide agencies, and I stress coordinate, to develop integrated water 

quality management programs throughout the States.

Currently, we have a revised program regulation to carry out these 

policies. We hope these revisions will simplify the procedural requirements and clarify the substantive requirements of the program. As 

needed, we will also pre pare more detailed annual guidance to assist 

the water quality management agencies in achieving their objectives.

You also asked me to comment on the AB AG management program, 

and whether we thought it was a good plan, worth emulating on a national basis. Let me say very briefly, as the regional plans have developed under 208, we thin k the ABAG plan is a very laudatory prototype, and one we would like to see followed in many areas across the 

country. Two things are particularly outstanding about it. One is 

tha t ABAG’s integrated environmental approach to water quality 

management meets one of the major objectives of the program. It addresses the complex of urban environmental problems. We feel tha t 

it is a prototype which provides a useful example fo r other communities.

ABAG is also ahead of most other water quality management programs in having established a mechanism to develop and implement 

integrated environmental management and also, I should say, to bring 

the public very effectively into the process. It combines air, water 

quality, water supply, and solid waste planning and management 

through a continuing planning process. The plan incorporates environmental impact assessment throughout the decisionmaking process and 

considers the interrelated impacts of managing water, air, and solid 

waste within the urban system. This was an especially prescient approach to take, because subsequent to the development of the ABAG 

plan, the Clean Air Act, as you know, was amended to provide that 

wastewater treatment construction grants cannot be made if they will 

contravene a ir quality standards. In this respect, the ABAG area is 

way ahead of the rest of the country.

One of the most important aspects of the process as I mentioned a 

little earlier, is tha t it is open to public communication and participation. The ABAG Environmental Task Force has profited greatly as 

a result of broad-based support from and involvement of local governments, labor, industry, and environmental groups within the bay area. 

Roughly, $400,000 was spent in insuring effective public participation 

out of a total grant in the neighborhood of $4.4 million.

Because the ABAG planning process has a comprehensive environmental scope and has encompassed a public decisionmaking process, it 

has been able to deal directly with the top environmental issues facing 

the bay. Because of its comprehensive nature, it has been easier for
140

citizens to understand priorities and deal with environmental issues. 

Rath er than having to deal with separate planning and management 

processes for different environmental media and separate jurisdictions, the AB AG integrated environmental management plan has 

offered a one-stop opportunity for residents of the bay area who are 

concerned about the protection and efficient management of the environment.

Nationwide, tremendous public investments are being made to 

achieve environmental quality. Just within the bay area, fo r example, 

over $3 billion is now being spent o r is projected to be spent by 1985. 

This includes $1 billion for a combined sewer project for San Fran ­

cisco, and another $1 billion for other water quality activities, such as 

urban runoff and wastewater treatm ent facilities.

In addition, major public investments are planned and underway for 

protection of other environmental media, and, I should add, major 

private investments as well. With this level of public expenditure, the 

public has a r igh t to expect positive environmental results. An integrated environmental management plan, such as AB AG is developing, 

is one of the most effective ways to assure the efficient use of public 

resources to achieve environmental quality.

In the 208 plan, the Federal Government pursues through local and 

State governments the environmental goals delineated by Congress in 

the Clean W ater Act. The Federal role in water quality planning and 

implementation is to provide funding, overall program direction and 

guidance, and technical financial assistance to water quality management agencies. If I might digress just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I think 

Mr. Jor ling’s view of the 208 process coincides verv closely to your 

view as you articulated i t in opening the hearing this morning. EPA 

provides assistance, oversees the process and the progress in the program, and reviews and takes approval action on each plan to assure 

consistency with national water qualitv goals. T his concludes my remarks. Mr. DeFalco can ta lk more specifically about the actual implementation of the plan and I will be glad to answer any other questions 

or discuss any issues you may wish.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you. Mr. DeFalco, why don’t you go on ?

Mr. DeF alco. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of 

the committee. Thank you very much for inviting me here to discuss 

the 208 program carried out by the Association of Bay Area Governments in the San Francisco Bay area. T hroughout the history of the 

208 program, region IX ’s office of EP A has viewed it as one of our 

highest priorities. I, therefore, welcome the opportunity to share with 

you today our perspective on AB AG’s 208 program. Our headquarters 

office has already discussed the history of the 208 program. I would 

like to focus on the significance of the approach used by ABAG in 

carrying out the ir 208 program in the context of integrated environmental planning. To begin with, however, let me briefly discuss how 

our earlier experiences with air quality planning affected the approach 

which we used in carrying out the 208 program.

With the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970, EP A required each 

State to prepare State implementation plans demonstrating how air 

qualitv standards were to be achieved. In March 1973, EP A disapproved the State implementation plan for California, requiring that 

transporta tion control plan strategies be developed and implemented.
141

Th e St ate of Ca lif or nia was unable to develop strate gie s to reduce 

emissions from mobile sources, and, in Novem ber 1973, th e t ra ns po rtatio n con trol plans were prom ulga ted by EPA . How ever, the im ple ­

me nta tio n of ma ny of thes e str ate gies pro ved infe asib le. A majo r 

factor in th e failu re of these pla ns was th e lac k of public support . 

Fur th er , the re h ad been ina dequate involvement by local and reg ion al 

agencies ultim ately respon sible fo r im ple me nti ng ma ny of the pr oposed controls.

In ca rrying ou t the ai r qu ality ma intenance plan ning prog ram , 

which also followe d fro m the C lean A ir A ct of 1970, E PA att em pted 

to ap ply the lessons lea rned fro m th e failu res of the tran sp or ta tion 

control plan effort. I t was clear th at i f plan s were to be imp lem ented, 

environme nta l plan ni ng would absolutely req uire b road-b ase d pub lic 

pa rti cipa tio n, and, in pa rtic ul ar , close inv olvement of elected officials 

and affected local agencies. A “top-do wn ” pl an ni ng prog ram sim ply 

would not work.

Now let us tu rn to the 208 prog ram . U nt il 1975, E P A ha d focused its 

water qu ali ty ma nageme nt effo rts on th e control of po int sources of 

pol lution . W ith the inc rea sin g concern over the more difficult con trol 

of n on po int sources of po llu tio n, att en tio n sh ifte d to th e im ple me nta ­

tio n o f section 208 of the Clean W ater Act of 1972, an d dev elopment of 

manag ement plans fo r control of these no np oint sources. Lessons 

lea rne d fro m t he tran sp or ta tion co ntrol plams were also appli ed in the 

development o f t he 208 prog ram. As w ith th e ai r qu ali ty m ain ten anc e 

pl an ning pro gram , th e need fo r a “ botto ms -up ” p lann in g p ro gram was 

clear. Th is approa ch was, of course, ap pli ed here in the San Fra ncisc o 

Ba y area. In th e sp rin g of 1975, AR B, th e St ate a ir agency, in iti at ed a 

local for um at A BA G wh ich selected a po licy task force t o o versee the 

development of A QM P.

In J un e 1975 t he A sso ciation of Ba y Area Gover nment s was desig ­

na ted as t he 208 pl an ni ng agency fo r the bay are a. It s m andate lay in 

the dev elopment of solutions to unr eso lve d wa ter qu ality problem s, 

with an em pha sis on ur ba n sto rm wa ter runoff. W ith ABAG’s design atio n as the 208 agen cy, bo th E P A an d AB AG , alo ng wi th the St ate 

ai r and wa ter agencies, recogn ized the benefits to be g ain ed f rom integr at in g the 208 prog ram with the ongoing ai r qu ality maintena nce 

pl an ni ng pro gra m. I t was clear t hat th is in tegr ation wou ld a ssure t hat 

a common d at a bas e was used. F urther , it was rea lized t hat the dem ands 

of each prog ram fo r effective local inv olvement could best be met by 

an integr ated appro ach. In Ja nuar y 1976, the task forc e which had 

been establish ed to oversee the a ir qu ality p lann in g prog ram d issolved 

its elf and merge d into the 46-m ember policy advisory com mittee, 

whose fun ction it was to oversee the dev elopment of an integr ated 

env ironm ent al ma nageme nt pla n. Th e im portance of an integr ated 

approa ch was fu rther reflecte d in the inclusion of solid waste and 

wa ter supply elem ents in the envir onme nta l ma nag em ent pla n. Th e 

goals of t he envir onme nta l m ana gem ent p lan were t o : (1) Le ad to th e 

greatest possible impro vem ent s rn w ate r a nd a ir qua lity, and prob lem s 

caused b y solid w aste; (2) to lead to com pliance w ith the F ed eral and 

St ate sta nd ards at the earliest possible da te; an d (3) as a locally 

developed plan, to be imp lem entabl e, th at is, to have no social, economic 

or e nvironm ental im pacts so una cce pta ble th at th e plan could no t be 

carried out.

35 -3 95 0 - 79 - 10
142

In keeping with the integrated approach, the State-Federal program 

review boards were established throughout the State to follow the 

development of the environmental management plans. The program 

review boards included policy level memberships of the EPA, the 

State water resources control board, the State air resources board, the 

regional water quality control board, and the Governor’s office of 

planning and research. As in other areas of the State, the program 

review board for the San Francisco Bay area met regularly with 

AB AG during plan development.

Region IX has come to place high value on an integrated approach 

to environmental planning. An overriding benefit, as a consequence of 

an integrated approach, is the development of plans which do not 

create new conflicts or problems. The relatively narrow perspectives of 

single-purpose planning agencies, which have often led to unimplementable plans, are significantly broadened. Common data bases are 

utilized. Development and discussion of population and growth projections are carried out in a manner which assures consistency among 

various planning programs.

An integrated approach provides a means for effective dialog in 

carrying out planning. Analysis of trade-off’s among planning alternatives is carried out in a broader context, with the explicit involvement 

of elected officials. Social, economic, and environmental priorities, 

which are of considerable importance in the development of an implementable plan, can be more clearly defined. Fu rther, integration provides a mechanism for coordinating and insuring consistency with 

related planning programs such as transporta tion planning, and the 

701 comprehensive planning assistance program of HUD.

Finally, integrated plan ning is much more conducive to realization of t ha t difficult goal of full public participation. An open planning process is assured by a single, highly visible p lanning program. 

Integrated planning provides a focus for involvement of all interests, 

including business, labor, and environmental.

The integrated planning approach has yielded, in AB AG’s case, 

management plans fo r water quality, solid waste, water supply, and 

air quality. A significant component of ABAG’s adopted environmental planning—management plan is the continuing planning process, which provides for maintaining an integrated planning approach. 

Future responsibilities and programs have been or are being defined, 

addressing as yet unresolved issues in environmental management. 

Mandates of th e Clean Water and Clean Air Acts of 1977 will be carried out in a similarly integrated manner. Coordination and consistency will be assured in such areas as the management of solid wastes 

and hazardous wastes. Provision is being made for incorporation of 

energy conservation plann ing as well.

Working from a base of relative sophistication and organizational 

strength, ABAG was able to rapidly develop an integrated environmental management planning process. While a leader in this area, 

ABAG has developed a program which is symbolic of region IX ’s 

efforts to establish integrated planning through out the region. These 

efforts have resulted in environmental planning programs which are 

integrated to various degrees, including the Los Angeles SCAG program, the San Diego CPO program, the Ventura program here in
143

California, the Tucson and Phoenix programs in Arizona, and the 

Reno-Sparks program in Nevada.

You have asked me to discuss the Federal role in the development 

of 208 plans. In summary, our role is one of financial assistance to the 

local governments to perform the planning, provision of guidance fo r 

plan development, and, in some cases, assistance in plan implementation. Our insistence on a locally developed plan effectively minimizes 

Federal involvement in plan preparation, thereby maximizing opportunities for local involvement. While our role in plan approval involves a determination of the adequacies of plans which are developed, 

this determination of necessity considers locally developed planning 

goals and the effectiveness of the process which was utilized in the 

planning program.

It is our belief th at the merits of integrated environmental management planning have been amply demonstrated here in the San Fr an ­

cisco Bay area. It is our goal to continue to refine and extend this 

approach throughout the region in carrying out our responsibilities for 

environmental management in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
144

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS TO ACCOMPANY

STATEMENT

of

Paul De Falco, Jr.

Regional Administrator 

Region IX, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

Before the

Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources 

Subcommi ttee 

of the

Comnittee on Government Operations

Congress of the United States 

House of Representatives

V San Francisco

June 24, 1978

1. 208 Agencies and Corresponding Gr ant Amounts

2. Functional Planning Areas which have been Integrated/Coordinated 

to some extent with the 208 program

3. 208 Agency Profiles

NOTE: The computer print-outs are provided as a representative 

sample.and do not cover all 208 programs in Region IX.
208 AGENCIES GRANT AMOUNT

A riz o n a

C e n tr a l A riz o n a A s s o c ia tio n o f G ov er nm en ts $

D i s t r i c t IV C o u n cil o f Gov er nm en ts

M aricopa A s s o c ia tio n o f Gov ernm en ts

N o rt h e rn A riz o n a A s s o c ia tio n o f Gov er nm en ts

Pima A s s o c ia tio n o f Gov er nm en ts

S o u th e a s te rn A riz o n a Gov er nm en ts O rg a n iz a tio n

O ffic e o f Ec on om ic P la n n in g and Deve lopm en t

C a lif o r n ia

A s s o c ia tio n o f Bay A re a Gov er nm en ts 

A s s o c ia tio n o f M onte re y Bay Are a Gov er nm en ts 

Com pre hensiv e P la n n in g O rg a n iz a tio n o f San O iego 

Sacr am en to R e gio n al Are a P la n n in g Co mmission 

S outh ern C a lif o r n ia A s s o c ia tio n o f Gov er nm en ts 

V e n tu ra R e gio n al C ounty S a n it a tio n D i s t r i c t

S ta te W ate r R esourc es C o n tr o l Boa rd

Guam

Guam E n vir o n m e n ta l P ro te c tio n Ag en cy

Haw ai i

H aw aii D epartm ent o f H e a lt h

Nevada

Cars on R iv e r B a sin C o u n c il o f Gov er nm en ts

106,3 34

13 4,2 02

614,9 82

298,2 67

962,2 30

117 ,1 89

100,0 00

4 ,3 0 2 ,8 9 0

829,5 00

1 ,3 39,2 80 

294,0 33

2 ,8 4 4 ,1 9 2

928,0 00

2 ,3 4 5 ,3 1 6

286,1 80

528,4 74

190 ,5 10
146

208 AGENCIES GRANT AMOUNT

Nevada (C ont'd )

C la rk County Board o f County Commissioners 773 ,880

Tahoe Region al Planning Agency 814,0 00

Washoe Cou nc il o f Governments 402,530

Nevada En vir on men tal P ro te c ti o n Agency 513 ,188 •

T ru s t T e rrit o rie s

Marian a Is la nds T ru s t T e rrit o ry

En vir on men tal P ro te c tio n Board 42,323

«
A riz o n a

C e n tr a l A riz o n a A s s o c ia tio n 

o f Gov ernm en ts

D i s t r i c t IV C o u n cil o f 

Gov ernm en ts

M aricopa A s s o c ia tio n o f 

Gov ernm en ts

N o rt h e rn A riz o n a A s s o c ia tio n 

o f Gov ernm en ts

Pima A s s o c ia tio n o f Gov er nm en ts

147

AREAS OF INTEGRATION/COORDINATION 

ADDRESSED TO SOME EXTENT

208 AGENCIES

S o u th e a ste rn A riz o n a Gov er nm en ts 

O rg a n iz a ti o n

O ffic e o f Ec on om ic P la n n in g 

& Deve lopm en t

C a li fo r n ia

A s s o c ia tio n o f Bay Are a 

Gov ernm en ts

A s s o c ia tio n o f M onte re y Bay 

Are a Gov er nm en ts

Com pr eh ens ive P la n n in g

O rg a n iz a ti o n o f San Die go

Sa cram en to R e gio n al Are a 

P la n n in g Co mmission

S outh ern C a lif o r n ia A s s o c ia tio n 

o f Gov er nm en ts

W at er S upply

S o li d Waste

Com pr eh ens iveP la n n in g

A s s is ta n c e

T ra n s p o rta ti o n

C o a sta l Zone

ManagementA ir Q u a li ty

X X N/A

X X N/A

X X X X N/A X

X X N/A

X X X X N/A X

X X N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X N/A X

X X X X X
148

AREAS OF INTEGRA!-.^/COORDINATION 

ADDRESSED TO SOME EXTENT

C a lifo rn ia (C on t'd )

Ventura Regional County 

Sanitation D is tric t

State Water Resources Control 

Board

Guam

Guam Environmen tal Pro te ction 

Agency

Hawaii

Hawaii Department of Health

Nevada

Carson River Basin Council o f 

Governments

Clark County Board o f County 

Commissioners

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Washoe Council of Governments

Nevada Environmental 

Pro te ct ion Agency

Tru st T e rr it o ri e s

Mariana Islan ds Tr us t T e rr it o ry 

Environmen tal Pro te ction Board

Water Supply

Solid WasteComprehensivePlanning

As sis tan ce

Tr an sp or ta tio n

Coastal Zone

Management

A ir Q ualit y

X X X X X

X X

X X X

X X X X

N/A

N/A X

X N/A

N/A X

X N/A

X X X
149

Mr. Ryan. Thank you. Mr. Smith, perhaps it would be better to 

begin with you as the Admin istrator of this Council of the Environmental Protection Agency. Some time back, he said he would give his 

“eye teeth,” th at’s a quote, to get the 208 money back, and I thin k he’s 

referring to about $300 million. EP A apparently has considered 

terminatin g the program. Is tha t true ?

Mr. Smith. We are considering terminating some programs, Mr. 

Chairman. Money has been spent th at has not been effectively utilized, 

and there’s no point in pouring more money after it.

Mr. Ryan. Where did tha t happen ?

Mr. S mith. I would hesitate to identify areas right now. I can get 

you a list, if you wish.

Mr. Ryan. I would very much like to have a list for the record. If 

you can do tha t I ’d appreciate it.

Mr. Smith. We have not terminated any yet. There are several under 

consideration.

Mr. Ryan. You mean they just haven’t complied?

Mr. Smith. Tha t essentially is right. They have basically wasted 

Federal money.

[The list referre d to follo ws:]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington. D.C., July IS. 1978.

Hon. Leo J. Ryan,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington,

D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : At the rece nt hearings regarding the EPA grant of section

208 funds to the Association of Bay Area Governments, you asked Jim Smith of 

my staff to provide you a listing of 208 agencies which have been terminated or 

which are being seriously considered for term ination. Our most recent inform ation is as follows.

Designated a reawid e agencies in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma : Joplin, Mi sso uri ;

Richmond-Crater, Virginia ; and Bay County, Florida have alread y been terminated. The term ination of agencies in Toledo, Oh io; Mandan, North Dak ot a; 

Evaniston, Wyoming; Carson City, Ne va da ; and San Jua n, Pue rto Rico also is 

being considered.

If you have additional questions concerning the 208 program, please do not 

hesitate to contac t me.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas C. J orung, 

for Water and Hazardous Materials.

Assistant Administrator

Mr. Ryan. Isn ’t th ere a lesson in there fo r all of us ?

Mr. Smith. Indeed.

Mr. Ryan. Th at might be the answer to all of the problems there 

are for those who are opposed. Would it be then unwise to make 

long-term and very costly commitments. You’ve talked about $3 billion for the bay area. What percentage of that $3 billion is to be locally 

spent, I mean to be raised locally and spent locally ?

Mr. Smith. I believe I ’m correct in saying that 75 percent of all of 

that, would be Federal money.

Mr. R yan. Seventy-five or twenty-five percent of $3 billion. I can’t 

do arithmetic very well, but let’s just say $750 million.

Mr. Smith. Yes. I think what we are talking about is not planning 

money. It is money for actual construction, for building.
150

Mt. Ryan. W ha t if the bay area gets ha lfw ay int o sp en din g $750 

millio n an d sud denly the F ed s will say well, “ Gee, you know, we’re— 

we don’t th in k t h at’s such a good idea anym ore ” ? W ha t will you do 

the n?

Mr. Sm it h. I th in k th at ou r comm itm ent wi th the prog ram is to 

watch 208’s v ery care fully , and to see t hat money is no t com mitted in 

are as where we th in k there is no basis, no goo d planning , an d we 

th in k the bay are a is at the sta ge where things are prog ressing very 

well.

Mr. Ryan. Yes, bu t yo u’re ta lk in g ab ou t money th at th e Congress 

is go ing to ap prop ria te.

Mr. S m it h. Th at’s righ t.

Mr. Ryan. I don’t know wh ethe r the App ro pr iatio ns Com mittee 

or the House is going to th row good money af te r bad. W hat ’s t o gu ar ­

antee th at once we get into some kind of prog ram or constru ction of 

the BA RT system or of the clean water prog ram or th e necessary 

sewage facil ities in Sa n Francis co—that the Fe de ral Gover nm ent is 

no t inter ested in pu rsuing it an y fu rthe r? A pa rtia lly com pleted 

plan can cause as much dam age as no pla n a t all.

Mr. Sm it h. Well, th at’s alw ays a danger, Mr. Ch air man, where you 

dep end on an an nual a pp ropr iatio n.

Mr. Ryan. Well, we do.

Mr. Sm it h. We do, we do indeed.

Mr. Ryan . So politically, unless th ere is some kind of gu ara ntee 

th at th e St ate of Califo rnia as well as the F ed eral G overn me nt is going 

to com mit its elf to some kind of 10-year pr og ram includ ing some 

means by whi ch we com mit the money, you’d have to say th at it 

wou ld be—i t w ould be at least if we use St an da rd & Po or rat in gs , a kind 

of me diu m-risk pr op os iti on ; wou ldn’t t hat be a fa ir ca teg oriza tio n ?

Mr. Sm it h. On the ni gh t of th e recent amend ments to the W ater 

Act, Congress did pro vid e fo r a 5-y ear autho riz ati on . I t wou ld seem 

the n to be the intent of Con gress to fu nd th at au tho riz ation .

Mr. R yan. W ell, does E P A intend to sort of stick by its com mitments even if some of these com munities fall by the way side , or lose 

th ei r enthu siasm, will E P A conti nue to com mit its elf an d help find 

the money ?

Mr. Sm it h. Yes, sir. If we ap pro ve a fac ili ty p lan , the step 1 facility p lan, a nd move fro m design to co nstru ction, we w ill definitely keep 

our mon ey on the line, a nd our com mitment.

Mr. R yan . The n ex t t hin g h as to do wi th deadlin es. W ha t abo ut— 

if S an F rancisc o Ba y are a is first, is th at tr ue ? Are we fu rt her ahe ad 

th an anybody else in acceptin g th is pla n no w ?

Mr. Smit h. Well, you’re way ou t i n fro nt. Th ere m ay be one or two 

oth ers th at are equ ally sound so fa r in the fron t line , bu t the bay 

are a is rea lly ------

Mr. R yan . So you like th e p lan and we ’re way o ut ahead th en ?

Mr. S m it h. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ryan. I s th e E P A in W ash ington imp ressed wi th the pla n?

Mr. S mit h. Th at ’s rig ht .

Mr. R yan. W ha t if th e St ate of C alifo rn ia, the w ater q ua lity board 

and th e ai r resource bo ard say we do n’t lik e it before it gets to you?

Mr. Smit h. Tha t cou ld ha pp en. Und er the sta tute, they hav e the 

righ t to disa pprove it.
151

Mr. Ryan. Th at’s right.

Mr. Smith. I f they do disapprove it, they have the option of coming 

up with something bette r themselves. Th at’s the ir first line of 

retreat.

Mr. Ryan. All righ t, now this is where I get back to what Mr. 

De Falco referred to when he tried a little earlier with the “top down” 

theory and it didn’t work. Now we’re going the “bottom up” theory. 

If we have the “bottom up” theory, this is what the bottom produces, 

this is what the local folks produce, and the top folks say it’s no 

good, here’s what you’re going to do, what’s the chances of it actually 

happening? Where would the EP A be in Washington looking out 

while the State says one thing, and the locals say another ?

Mr. Smith. Well, in this particu lar circumstance, I think i t’s highly 

unlikely. I wouldn’t want to mislead you and tell you tha t it ’s not 

going to happen anywhere in the United States however.

Mr. Ryan. That’s what I’m talking about. This is a national policy, 

and I use local examples. We can talk about Cincinnati, we can talk 

about Miami, we can talk about Chicago, we can talk about any place 

you want. Wh at happens when there is that ?

Mr. Smith. We, the Agency, and I believe I ’m correct, have the 

possibility of overriding the State and working with the locality 

if the State fails to act itself and move in with its own definitive plan 

for guidance, but just disapproves a local activity. I think we would 

then try to work with a local government and develop what we 

could.

Mr. Ryan. I s tha t the way you see it Mr. DeFalco?

Mr. DeF alco. There’s some difficulties that lie in the statute, Mr. 

Chairman, in that the statu te essentially assigns to the Governor the 

ability to designate State or local planning agencies and reserves to 

the State the approval process. Now, if the State does not approve 

the local plan, it has the responsibility under the statute to provide 

an alternate, and if the State fails to do that, then EPA has to work 

out something. I think what we’ve tried to do here, and we’ve tried 

to, just about everywhere in the country, I ’m aware, is tried to maintain our and the State involvements in the planning process from 

day one, so we’re not confronted at the approved stage with somethin g we’re unaware of, or that’s unacceptable. There may be differences of opinion in terms of the applicability of various scenarios 

and the like, bu t generally speaking, the plans as they move forward 

have concurrence, and tha t was very frankly the basis for the program review board concept th at we had here in California with each 

of our agencies with participation from those other agencies tha t 

had decisionmaking functions. So there shouldn’t be tha t unawareness.

Mr. R yan. There was reference on several occasions yesterday, and 

in the past few months I ’ve heard it over and over again from local 

officials, almost without exception, and the general comment went 

like th is:

Do you like the plan?

“Well, it’s all right I guess.”

Would you do it if you didn’t have to?

“Well I don’t know.” Would we do it this way?

“But, if we don’t do it, they’re going to come in and do i t for us.”
152

There’s a kind of gun to the head sort of compulsion there. Do you 

know o f any kind of comment or any kind of objection to comments 

like that in other parts of the country first of all, Mr. Smith? Has 

tha t been an objection elsewhere?

Mr. Smith. I’m not aware of it specifically, no, sir.

Mr. Ryan. Mr. DeFalco, how about around here?

Mr. DeFalco. Well, there are objections of tha t nature to just 

about any federally mandated or State mandated program by local 

officials. This is a rather common occurrence in our institutional system. One likes to be in control of one’s own destiny. I think you’ve 

expressed it rather admirably before in terms of your past experience 

at the local level, and yet we do have in fact, a tiered system of 

government which tends to lay on these requirements.

Mr. Ryan. Now let me ask another question that has to do with what 

I believe to be a serious shortcoming in the way the law is written 

and the way it’s implemented going back to what I believe to be an 

essential fundamental in good government, which is that you give 

people incentives to go in the rig ht direction.

You don’t punish them. There’s no better example of the second 

route than what you refer to as the “top down” tha t you use with 

an attempt to penalize people who move out of the cities and into 

these suburban areas and developed all these suburban shopping centers, which are terriblv expensive from a pollution standpoint.

But, they’re there. I don’t th ink it ’s possible to punish them because 

30 years ago, tha t’s what they decided to do about Federal programs.

They built the highways to get the people out there, Federal highways. They gave them F HA loans to buy the houses, and they loaned 

them the money and having done so, encouraged them to get out 

there, and now that they’re there, we’re going to chop them off. I 

think it’s foolish.

What I want to know is, why can’t we go the same direction by 

bringing the people back to the cities or developing where they are 

to the point where they use th e automobile less, because they want 

to, not because they have to.

Specifically, what kind of work has EP A done to order, if necessary, the Department of Transportation or the Housing and Urban 

Development Department, or the Department of Energy, to come 

up with 9ome kind of plan by such-and-such a date to resolve the 

problem of air and water quality ? Can you do it ? Have you discussed 

it in Washington? Can you do it here in the regional area as an 

experiment?

Mr. Smith. Nationally, you know, we don’t have t ha t kind of leverage. Congress would have to direct that, or the President. We have 

discussed, we have had interagency agreements with them-----

Mr. Ryan. We could try.

Mr. Smith. We could try. I don’t think we would have too much 

thrust on a-----

Mr. Ryan. I think you’d be surprised at how much you did have i f 

you tried. Wha t I ’m saying is, one of the things that has not hap ­

pened in all of this is that you’re willing to order mortals around, 

but you won’t attempt to order each other around, which is where 

the darned battle ought to be.

M r. Smith. The Federal Government doesn’t have its own act 

toge ther, yes.
153

Mr. Ryan. Th at’s wrong. Precisely.

Mr. DeFalco. Mr. Chairman, may I respond ?

Mr. Ryan. Please do.

Mr. DeFalco. In terms of the bay area, we have had rath er direct 

and intimate involvement with both HUD and Transportation over 

the last 5 to 7 years. Growing out of that first go around on the 

Clean Air Act, some comments I think you made at a hearing some 

time ago raising that very issue, we are a particip ant in what’s referred to as the Intermodal Plan ning Group, a DOT organization 

that tries to join together the efforts of DOT, HUD, and ourselves 

to integrate our planning at th e Federal level, and we have provided 

rather substantive comments to them on many of their plans, and 

the ir plans are startin g to take into consideration these kinds of 

issues.

But I do think , r eferring back to something you said before, we’re 

trying to undo what we’ve taken 35 years to create. It’s not going to 

happen overnight. The AB AG plan is a plan for the next 10 to 20 

years. What we’re looking to, and I think the Water Quality Act tried 

to do that, in a sense, but unfortunately all acts have to be implemented the day they’re pu t on the books even though there may be a 

general plan laid out in them. And, there is a plan laid out in the 

Water Quality Act for a planning process followed by a program of 

construction based upon a series of incentives—the construction g rant 

program. Unfortunately we’re caught up practicing all of them at 

the same time, rather than the orderly approach tha t would come if 

we had our options. I thin k the same thin g is happening in T ransportation, and w hat we have to do over the next 20 years is try to undo, 

using the various Federal incentive programs, some of the harm we’ve 

done to the area over the last 35 years.

Mr. Ryan. I ’m glad to hear you at least say th at i t’s Federal policies 

which have caused the harm in the process.

The Federal Government itself ought to be the first to begin to undo 

the damage i t’s still doing, by its own shortsighted policies th at are 

running 2 years in planning length.

What about DOE and HUD and DOT? Are they going to be 

involved in the review of this plan ?

Mr. DeF alco. We would be having discussions with our sister 

agencies on their components or their elements, and as we are observing their programs and plans.

Mr. R yan. I can’t thin k of anything tha t would help to resolve the 

problem, as far as Federal policies are concerned, more than incentives 

to bring people back to central cities.

Just take my own area in San Mateo County, a 100 percent suburban 

area. You’re never going to get people out of their cars. I don’t give 

a darn if you go out to their house in the morning with a pistol. 

They’ll knock it out of yo ur hand and go anyway. They’re not going 

to do it.

On the other hand, if you take the shopping centers for example, 

as a point of departure, and ask questions about why it’s spread out 

in two dimensions and not in three, building up, why you can’t put in 

some housing, when they’re within walking distance of the shopping 

center, it’s high rise.

Th at’s controversial. You talked about high rise in the building 

game 58 years ago. I remember the first time the planning commission
154

voted to p ut in a high rise building, more than about 5 stories high, 

and there was hysteria in the planning meeting in the Burlingame 

City Hall. Now it’s accepted. Always when there’s change, it takes 

time to be accepted, but I think tha t if the Federal Government is 

going to push and shove and bully as it has in the past, the least it 

could do is to have sympathy for the people who are out there already, 

tha t they p ut out there, and give them some kind of support.

I don’t see the part of the Federal Government itself now, in these 

kinds of plans. I notice the Secretary of Transportation saying tha t 

in Washington he wouldn’t be satisfied until he got everybody out of 

their automobiles and into mass transit.

Wh at a zealot he is, and how foolish, and I wonder how long he’ll 

last. The people will only stand for so much and I guess 1 believe, in 

concluding here, with you as Federal officials, you have a great deal 

of power, and I think what makes people disillusioned including me, 

and I thin k many Members of Congress, is t hat you don’t clean up 

your own act. You ask others to do it at your order.

What about DOT and HUD and I)OE ? Will they be putting in 

writing suggestions and comments as to what their policies are or 

what they intend to do to help with this air and water quality cleanup ?

It isn’t just air and water. Heck, we’re talking about changes in 

the lives and in the customs and in the pursuit of happiness of 4!/

million people in the bay area alone, let alone 10 million in southern 2

California and elsewhere in the country.

Mr. DeFalco. One of the reasons for placing the grants of the 

programs originally with the areawide planning agencies was to get 

tha t kind of integration, since the area wide planning agencies had the 

responsibility for the H UD 701 planning, and in this particular case, 

rath er direct involvement in the planning of transporta tion. So to a 

great extent that has been integrated, and tha t has been fed into the system.

Mr. Ryan. Well, thank you very much for coming, both of you. 

I appreciate your comments, and they’ve been very enlightening, and 

I think a little more encouraging than I ’d expected. Perhaps, with the 

righ t kind of integration, this thin g can be made to work around here.

I don’t know, but we’re talking about an enormous—actually staggering—amount of money, and a staggering amount of involvement 

by local officials with State and Federal folks, and I would earnestly 

hope just saying it from here once more that the Federal and State 

officials will exercise the power they have extremely carefully.

The reason why the “top-down” approach didn’t work with the 

park ing lots a few years ago was because you got the whole darn 

Congress riled up, and when you get them riled up, it ’s because there 

are millions of people who are pretty unhappy, and I think it takes 

a little more sophisticated approach.

Thank you very much for coming, both of you.

Mr. Smith. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Ryan. It’s now almost 12. We will take a break for lunch and 

be back here at—I’m anxious to get all of you out of here as soon as 

possible. We need to hear testimony now from the people who are 

most affected by the discussion of the last day and a half. I ’m very 

anxious to hear from them, the business community and the labor 

community. We will reconvene here at 1.
155

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m,, the subcommittee recessed to reconvene 

at 1 :04 p.m., the same day.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. Ryan. The subcommittee will come to order. The next g roup is 

a panel from labor—representative of labor here in the San Francisco 

Bay area, Mr. Holcomb, of the plumbers; Dale M arr, of the operating 

engineers; Bonnie England , representing COLAB; and Doyle Wi lliams of the steamfitters.

[Witnesses sworn.]

STATEMENT OF H. C. HOLCOMB, PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS 

LOCAL UNION NO. 467

Mr. Holcomb. Members of Congress of the Environment, Energy, 

and Natural Resources Subcommittee, my thoughts for the hearing on 

the ABAG, EMP , and the Clean Air Act are few. Items to be addressed 

on the labor panel are to be: (1) how did labor’s view impact the 

EMP? (2) what were the compromises in the planning process? (3) 

how should the plan be updated to meet local needs?

Taking into account the above three items, I have interwoven my 

comments and remarks in the following report.

I am speaking today as a member of th e organized labor movement, 

as a member of the ABAG Environmental Management Task Force 

tha t has been involved in preparing the environmental management 

plan for the past 2 years, and the only elected representative of organized labor on the entire 46-man task force, and, of course, as an active 

citizen and a lifelong resident of the bay area.

Labor impacted the EM P at a number of points in the process. 

In the initial stages of the plan we participa ted in draftin g—to the 

extent tha t anyone knew what was coming out of the staff-prepared 

plan—and were thus able to forewarn people of th e negative impacts 

tha t certain sections of the plan may have contained.

In the initial hearings it was organized labor which spread the 

word and noted the negative impacts which the plan—particula rly 

the AQ MP—had in social and economic terms. The land use section of 

the plan would have cost 10 times as much as any other strategy to 

implement. This would have been offset with an improvement of 3 to 

5 percent in the air quality by the year 2000. Or put another way, the 

land use section would reduce emissions by 24 tons/day in an inventory 

of 450 tons/day, again, a t a cost 10 times th at of any other strategy.

Working families, as w’ell as people on fixed incomes like retirees, 

would be hit the hardest by such a plan. Minorities and inner-city residents could expect to be hard hit, as always. Prices could be expected to 

rise as the amount of land available would be reduced by 59 percent. 

The existing land and housing would be in greater demand, causing 

prices to rise higher than they would otherwise, in an area of the 

country which is witnessing recordbreaking increases in cost-of-living 

figures ahead of the rest of the Nation.

Tech memo No. 15, by ABAG’s owm admission, pointed out some of 

these impacts.

Just as labor was one of the prime movers in pointing out the nega-
156

tiv e im pacts of the plan, it was and is lab or th at has take n par t in 

am endin g the sta ff- draft ed pl an to arriv e at t he EM P which we h ave 

tod ay. I n d oin g this, lab or, as h ave oth ers, has become involved in the 

leg islati ve process o f g ive a nd take, of compromise of possible loss of 

jobs and economic grow th in th e bay area.

La bo r has defend ed the plan , rea liz ing th at th is is a good-fa ith 

effo rt t o m eet strin ge nt and co nfli ctin g r egulati on s an d sta nd ards, and 

th at by com promising and ge tti ng involved at the local level where 

the p lan was dr af te d an d Go vernm ent is closest to th e people, we have 

been able to pro duce a plan wh ich does meet the sta nd ards.

Now it is the job of the St ate to appro ve the plan wi th no ma jor 

modificati ons or changes.

Ju st to stop and sum marize fo r a mom ent, I th in k the po int th at 

lab or ha s gone from the critic to one o f t he d efe nders o f the plan, apd 

by de fend ing it I mea n o nly th e f ac t that we we re g ive n som eth ing an d 

told we were going to g et th is or s om eth ing worse is im po rta nt. I can 

th in k of a n um ber o f examples o f help in this project fro m org anized 

lab or in ou r lob bying e ffor t; th e res ult s showed 2 w eeks ago was th at 

wi th the able help of Bob Gilmore in San Mateo, Bob Duffey, Jo hn 

Rebie ro on a numb er of occasions in the sou th bay, as has Mike Nye 

of t he ce ntr al lab or council in S an ta C lar a. In th e e ast bay, Bill W ard, 

Doyle Willi am s, mem bers of CO LA B, et cetera, and Local 3 of the 

Ope ra tin g En gin eer s.

Th e im po rtan t p oint here is that the com prom ises were mad e, people 

stoo d to lose and still do, bu t decided to go with the effort. Th is leads 

into the nex t section of “H ow sho uld the EM P be up da ted to meet 

local needs?”

Several fac tors are im po rtan t in loo kin g towa rd the up da tin g of 

the plan. Fi rs t, the gen era l asse mbly in San Jos e, th e only question 

which w as no t u nan imously decided was th at of equal enf orcement o f 

the plan. Th e amend ment, which was offered fro m th e floor to scr ap 

the pl an shou ld we find the ot he r are as of th e coun trv a re no t com plyin g an d th us pu ttin g us at a com pet itiv e dis advantage, fai led bv a 

close vote. I believe th at vote mav hav e been one vote shy. Tha t says 

th at the re a re at leas t hal f the cities and counties in the bay area concer ned about the fa ir and equ itable imple me nta tio n of the Clean Air 

Ac t t hrou gh ou t t he co untry . As a numb er of people h ave said, the ba y 

are a does no t wa nt to be a guine a pig; fo r the res t of the N atio n.

Th e othe r factor whi ch I th in k is im po rtan t at th is tim e is the 

message of Ja rvis- Gan n. Clearly , people were sayin g th at thev wa nt 

a governm ent which is more efficient and we iu st can’t affo rd to be 

pa yi ng fo r program s wh ich do n’t ma ke sense, neither do lla rs and cen ts, 

or commonsense.

Local governments hav e fe lt the impacts in the last weeks as they 

pr ep ar e alternate budgets. Th e St ate is also ge ttin g religion du ring 

th is process. Obv iously there is a lesson to be l earned nere fo r the F ederal Gov ernment. La nd use wa s r ejected bv local go ve rnmen t as i t was 

no t a cost effective, no r a so ciallv a cceptab le s trateg y to m eet a ir quali ty 

goa ls. Sin gle -pu rpo se plan ning , like land use in an a ir q ua lity con text, 

is no t th e way to go.

So, in the up da tin g process, we s hou ld be loo kin g t o the equ ity issue 

as well as the actua l im ple me nta tio n of the plan. On the second im-
157

plementation, we have to be assured t ha t the plan is not a no-growth 

plan.

In the continuing planning process we have to be wary of the 

pitfalls tha t were faced in the preparation of the original plan. Those 

would include issues of citizen and public interest groups—such as 

labor—continued involvement in the CPP. Also, ABAG has to continue to strive to be responsive, and in touch with local government. 

After all, we are them, they are us, et cetera. But things have a way 

of getting away from us when someone is not watching the store.

As part of the legislative recommendations contained in the plan 

is point 2.9 which says that we have met the stringent standards and 

tha t ABAG urges Congress to reexamine the no-risk philosophy and 

requirements of the Clean Air Act to make them reasonable for 

local governments seeking to comply. The standards issue is brought 

up in other areas as you know. COLAB has made its endorsement of 

the plan hinged on the reexamination of the standards, tha t has been 

one of the assumed goals of labor, the Bay Area Council, Operating 

Engineers of Local 3, and so forth. This statement touches on this 

issue as well as the concern for its plan not being a no-growth plan.

Looking back, I forgot to mention the issue of compact growth as 

related to social and economic impacts of land use. The assumptions 

made on social behavior were particularly noteworthy, tha t of people 

living near their jobs. Labor families and families which cannot 

always afford to live where thev want to and, therefore, have to commute to jobs, wherever they might be able to find them, do not fall into 

the assumptions made in the compact growth scenario.

Thank you for listening.

Mr. Ryan. Th at’s a nice statement. Mr. Marr ?

STATEMENT OF R. P. MARR, OPERA TING ENGINEERS 

LOCAL NO. 3

Mr. Marr. I think, Mr. Chairman, to sta rt I should mention tha t 

Dale Marr, who is the business manager for Operating Engineers 

Local No. 3, is unavailable at this time, and so asked if I would appear 

on his behalf.

I spent all week preparing remarks fo r you and I ’ve given copies out, 

and I think back to what good friends we used to be working in the 

State department of labor, we’ve always said tha t there’s three speeches 

you always do; the one you prepare, the one you give, and the one 

you think you should have given on the way home. Since I ’ve prepared this during the week and have thought about it yesterday and 

today, I have thought of other things to say, but I ’ll run throug h it and 

maybe supplement a little.

Mr. R yan. I f you wish, we can accept your written comment here 

for the record and it will be printed as such and you can simply amend 

what you’ve got here as you see fit.

Mr. Marr. I thin k I ’d like to do th at at the essence of time. There 

are areas that both Chet and I would cover and, therefore, I think 

the State will find an overlapping testimony.

Some of the things t ha t we’ve been concerned about since the inception of the ABAG money, and one th ing of major concern was the

35 -3 95 0 - 79 - 11
158

fact that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act section 208 moneys

which we understood would be used for clean water, were used to do

a totally comprehensive plan, and we’ve questioned tha t from the

very beginning.

But the thin g tha t has always really concerned me is the way the 

bureaucracy seems to waffle off whatever money is put fo rth in planning 

things, and all the plans in the world don’t do any good to help the 

situation tha t they’re planning for. So they issued $4.3 million to do 

a study of cleaning up the environment and yet it has not done any- *

thing but dirt y the environment with an extra 300 pounds of paper 

every time you turned around. If it were to be beneficial to the people 

it would seem to me that the minor amount of money used for planning, 

the rest would then be turne d loose to actually start running those *

programs. Yet, in the 4 years ABAC has been planning things we 

could have sewer treatment, water treatment facilities, and improve 

the quality and the supply of the water.

I guess the basic issue in planning always seems to be that they 

plan things to deliberately be obsolete in the next number of years.

Invariablv, freeways are planned to be obsolete 5 years after they’re 

completed. And it seems to me in areas such as sewage treatment, water treatment, where pumps and mechanical things are involved, vou 

would always want to build it a littl e larger than it is suggested it 

should be so that the capacities are not alwavs let up against the absolute maximums, and the pumps are running 24 hours a day and bum out 

money to replace them, and to be an efficient operation you would always want to have a little extra in case something happe ned : A boring 

TV show or something and everybody went to the restroom at the same 

time and tha t great influx hit, you could handle it. But, invariably 

things happen, and they know, you can’t do this. The one thing I use as 

an example is the city of Reno which is pa rt of our jurisdiction. They 

must by 1982 expand their sewer capacitv by 10 million gallons a day.

The city of Reno looked into the possibilities and then said—and I fo rget the exact dollar amount, it was $12 or $15 million—“for an extra 

20 percent funded money, we can double th at to 20 million gallons a 

day capacity.” And the Environmental Protection Agency, region I X 

told them, “No, you can’t do that. In 1996 we will look at the feasibility *

of giving you another 10 million gallons a day.”

And, m 1996 they’ll show tha t they badlv needed tha t 10 years 

before they gave the approval to it, and old John Q. Taxpayer gets 

stuck footing tha t bill again. And it just compounds and compounds “

and goes on and on and on. We’re hopeful that since we do have our tax 

revolt proposition 13. that maybe the rest of the people will take a 

lesson from it, and become more efficient.

I think tha t one of the areas th at we would reaTIv like to see, and it 

sounds funny for a labor organization to be crying on behalf of the 

employers, but the fact remains tha t if the economy’s bad, we get our 

just rewards, and if it’s good, we get our share. But the areas that 

are heavily industrialized and have the dirty air are being told that you 

cannot allow any new facilities into the area and, therefore, you 

cannot generate any new employment. You can’t allow the people 

to move up and down the economic structures, and it seems to me 

tha t the more practical things would be that you would do everything 

you could to upgrade the old plants that are there that don’t have the
159

new environmental gear, and the new plants that are built have to 

by law, conform to the environmental standards. So it would seem 

to me you’d want to encourage all the new industry you could tha t 

would conform to the standards, instead of penalizing those people 

and letting the guys that have been there for 20 years go ahead and 

pollute the air. We trie d to “top down,” and now we’re trying to “bottom up,” and at the same time we’re still going backwards.

Those are the areas that really concern the people that we represent. 

« Historically, labor is a representative of the dues-paying members

and their families, b ut the underprivileged, the minorities, the working class poor, whatever, we train and take them all in to our unions, 

and those are the areas tha t we really have to worry about. A person

• who lives in the inner-city area has a totally different idea of what the 

environment is th an somebody th at lives in St. Francis Woods—San 

Francisco. His environment is what’s happening on the street around 

him, what the people in the apartment next to him are doing because 

of paper-thin walls and everything else. And they’re the ones tha t 

are really worried about the day-to-day happenings, and not what’s 

going to happen 20 years from now. They’re worried about making 

it today, not tomorrow. And tha t seems to me that should be an area 

of great concern to more people than it seems to be of concern now.

Mr. Ryan. Mr. Williams?

STATEMENT OF DOYLE WILLIAMS, BUSINESS MANAGER, STEAMFIT TER S LOCAL NO. 342

Mr. Williams. My name is Doyle Williams and I ’m business manager of the Steamfitters Local 342. My local is a casualty of the Clean 

Air Act with 60-percent unemployment. My members would have 

built the Dow Chemical plan t which was turned down upon air 

quality standards. We would also have built the plants which are 

now banned by current ABAG plan and Clean Air Act standards.

I am appalled by the tactics of the environmentalists and so-called 

clean a ir experts in the EP A and the State air board. These people 

are far more concerned about empire building or in stopping growth

• than in cleaning up the air. Indeed, I don’t think they care about people’s economic welfare, which ultimately leads to the social disorder 

and deprivation of the family unit.

The ABAG fiasco is one more illustration of just how bad things

• have gotten. I, for one, in my local union, may not count for anything, 

but I want all to know w hat has gone on here. It would appe ar tha t 

everyone else is too polite, or too scared, to tell it the way it really 

is. I have nothing to lose anymore.

F ir st : EP A and the State got together and selected ABAG as its 

lead agency to prepare this plan. I n the process they bypassed already 

existing local and regional agencies.

Second: To insure funds for the project EP A diverted $4.3 million of the clean water funds to do a four element environmental management plan. This step assured EP A control of the process and insured confusion. This action is the subject of a lawsuit now pending 

before the U.S. district court.

Thi rd : Staff set up a task force which had the job of reviewing 

a confusing, and often vague, set of rules, proposals, strategies, studies,
160

and policies. This process led to a monstrous draft plan, which had

been prepared without one word of critical analysis, public input, or

economic assessment.

Fo ur th : There was virtually no honest assessment of the plan, and 

were it not for a private sector group such as COLAB, who are outside of the process, it is doubtful t hat the dra ft plan would have ever 

been challenged. As it was, an intensive lobbying campaign was required in order to get EP A and ARB staff off ABAG ’s back. As 

soon as this occurred, the process opened up and meaningful changes 

began to occur. These changes resulted in the compromise plan. a

F if th : Even with the plan—with a plan which meets the law, EP A 

and ARB staff continued to hammer on us. As I sec it, they know the 

compromise plan is essentially OK, but they are made because we «

refused to adopt certain strategies they wanted to try . Accordingly, we 

all fully expect an effort to reintroduce the controls desired by outside 

staff based upon claims that the plan is inadequate.

Si xt h: EP A and Congress, gave us very few choices by virtue of 

not allowing us to question the Clean Air Act standards. Accordingly, 

we did not spend one moment considering the social and economic 

effects of the existing new source rules which are mandated by the 

existing standards. The situation has been analogous to condemning 

a man to die while letting him select the method of his own demise.

My recommendation in order to prevent this sort of abuse, I would 

recommend the following measures: (1) Pass legislation preventing 

EP A from using section 208 dollars for other purposes, and from 

requiring plans to be formulated simultanteously; (2) pass legislation recognizing that air quality plans have a high level of uncertainty 

and require EP A to approve any bona fide plan which is supported by 

substantial evidence; (3) pass legislation providing funds to retain 

independent consultants to prepare economic and social assessments 

of each pla n; and (4) review the change of the no-risk philosophy embodied in the Clean Air Act and upon which current standards are 

based.

T would just like to ad lib a little bit at the end. Our present status 

of the air quality and water qualitv as we’ve been told by the bay area 

air pollution control board, tha t the air quality since 1968, and the •

water quality, has cleaned itself up considerably, 2- to 3-percent per 

year.

My particu lar membership has been decimated by unemployment 

brought about by the unbelievable time delays and unattainable stand- *

ards that seem to be required in new construction facilities. These 

standards aren’t uniform across the Nation, and this is what’s most 

difficult to explain to my membership and other building tradesmen 

tha t are leaving the country, or leaving the State, going to other 

States which seem to believe in growth such as Washington, Arizona, 

and Texas. My membership righ t now at the present time, you can’t 

explain to them at all why the Dow Chemical Co. which was turned 

down in this area, and it only took 6 months fo r them to break ground 

in Texas, Louisiana on the same facilities. I f the E PA standards were 

enforced uniformly across the Nation, I am sure we’re going to see 

mass chaos in January 1979, when the standards—the Clean Air Act 

standards ultimately cut down on the rest of the 128 nonattainment 

areas, because I particula rly feel t ha t they don’t really know what’s
161

about to h it them, and there will be extensions and delays, bu t if we 

take a little commonsense attitude about this situation, and realize 

that there has to be social and economic grow th along with cleaning 

up the air, I think we’ll all be better off.

At the present time, the trade-off policy tha t was adopted by the 

bay area pollution control board is not going to be workable, because 

only the plants that are literally about to fall down now are going 

to be able to build. There is going to be no more new construction in 

the bay area as far as heavy industry goes, and we need heavy industry 

as well as we need residential and commercial development. If we 

don’t have the one, we don’t have the other. So we’re going to have to 

take a second look at the Federal Clean Air Act, and we’ve lost the 

United States Steel Co., intrag ated steel mill in Pittsb urgh , which was 

a $2 billion job, $100 million at Bidel Paper Deinking and Recycling 

Plant which was a means of not cutting down the trees in the north 

and it was turne d down, so there ’s been numerous, numerous projects 

tha t have been turned down just because of overzealous standards that 

really weren’t looked at in a realistic manner.

I want to than k you at the end fo r taking time out of your schedule 

to come out and make this, because I think this is long overdue.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams, for a very excellent 

statement.

May I ask this? Who put together the size and the consistency of 

the advisory group of the 46 ?

Mr. Holcomb. Mr. Ryan could I—I have a few notes th at I added 

today, and I think one of them will explain th at.

Mr. Ryan. OK.

Mr. Holcomb. The AB AG staff is basically an environmentalist and 

no-growth by the n ature of their makeup. Not only that, b ut many of 

the environmental task force members were selected by the staff for 

tha t very reason. When I first appeared at an EM TF meeting well 

over 2 years ago, I could hardly believe the makeup. I asked if labor 

could be more equally represented. That was shot down real quick. 

However, we were able to place a labor man on each of the subcommittees. W ith the odds as they were, they were allowed little or no 

input. In the final vote on land use, although labor and thei r friends 

were successful in removing it to the CP P and later out entirely, there 

were many reasons for the success. Land use should be controlled by 

local government only. ABAG is an unnecessary additional layer of 

government. Many local officials have yet to realize, I believe, that 

proposition 13 is in effect. Labor voted for this plan, but if—but it was 

this or the State or Federal regulations had not been drummed into us, 

we would have thrown the whole thing out, and with the entire plan 

in my estimation. Thank you.

Mr. Ryan. Who actually had the authority to nick the group? 

Where does the authority come from, the government ?

Mr. Holcomb. I ’m not sure just exactly how they were picked by 

the government to begin with, the State government, but they were 

hand picked, and if you talk to them, believe me they’re a bunch of 

posey picking no-growth people.

Mr. Marr. Mr. Ryan, I think it was the original delegation of who 

ABAG’s staff would be, came through Mr. Press’ departm ent, office 

of planning and research.
162

Mr. Ryan. Well, one of the things I ’m finding we could develop, and 

maybe perhaps the staff can go into it later on, is who made the machine ?

Mr. Marr. We’ve been asking the same question.

Mr. H olcomb. Th at’s correct, we’ve been asking the same question, 

Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Ryan. Because obviously, if it’s done by a particular group, the 

bias would be there.

Mr. Holcomb. It was.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Ryan, I think w hat’s happening here is we can’t 

put all the blame on the Federal Government, and I think there’s certain blame to be placed on the State administration. At the present 

time, as I understand it, and I discussed this with Bill Press and Mike 

Bedsoe of the office of planning and research, and it’s indicated to me 

tha t under the State implementation plan you’re going to see the same 

type of enfamille which we’re not opposed to, but we are opposed to it 

if it’s the only type of construction allowed. We feel tha t it’s improper 

to draw a line around the city corps and say you can’t build outside of 

that, because if we followed that kind of philosophy 200 years ago, we 

would never have reached the west coast, and I thin k this is a philosophy of th is administration to enfil as much as possible, and the way 

any new construction homes and what have you, in suburbia.

Mr. Ryan. I think it’s extremely important as far as national significance, that we determine how these groups tha t made the plan are 

created. Who your ju ry consists of determines what the outcome or the 

result is going to be. I think there have been enough lawsuits on that 

in regard to racial problems in the South, and other places, as far as 

what, the biases are and what is essentially a jury. Now what you’re 

sayin g is th at labor believes, and you speak for labor, I presume, here 

in the bay area, that the deck was stacked, is tha t correct ?

Mr. Holcomb. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ryan. You said you had one labor man representing the labor 

community out of the 46 on the panel, and that was you, right Mr. 

Holcomb ?

Mr. Holcomb. Yes.

Mr. Ryan. Did labor make any effort to resist tha t or to change it ?

Mr. Holcomb. I asked for more. And we did have one other good 

friend.

Mr. Ryan. Who did decide on the 46 ? Why is 46 the magic number, 

why wasn’t 23, why wasn’t 122 ?

Mr. Holcomb. It was smaller until they found reasons to put another 

group tha t was favorable to their way of thinking on it, such as one 

of the late r ones brought on was the midpeninsula fair housing. The 

person t hat was put on tha t is an avowed non-growther. The senior 

citizens were represented by a very excellent man, and he’s a nice guy, 

but he also was a complete avowed no-growther. They found spots 

for-----

Mr. Ryan. Who put them on ? By what process—how’d they get 

a vote ?

Mr. Williams. As I understand it Mr. Ryan, the committee—the 

executive committee was made up of elected supervisors, councilmen, 

et cetera, and thev each had something to do with-----

Mr. Ryan. The AB AG executive committee actually was the appointing authority.
163

Mr. Williams. Right, and they each appointed what they saw fit, 

more or less.

Mr. Ryan. The executive committee consists of—how is the ABAG 

executive committee chosen ?

Mr. Marr. One member from each board of supervisors of the nine 

counties and one member city, each city had one representative. So you 

had a total of 91.

Mr. Ryan. As members of the executive committee ? And the members who are on the ABAG executive committee would be appointed 

by their board of supervisors and by the county council of mayors, 

I suppose.

Mr. Marr. Well, i t came out each city had one representative, each 

county, and then the—like the Alameda Mayors Conference, San 

Mateo County mayors conference, and they seemed to jog wherever 

they could. Solano County dropped out of the plan, others threatened 

to drop out when the vote came around, and each time one of them 

dropped out, they augmented with another group to keep a certain 

number, a corps. I had asked at one time originally from the city other 

than the time which was Fremont, asked the mayor, how did you 

decide who would be the representative to ABAG from the city of 

Fremont. He said there was only one guy who had enough time to 

spend 10 or 12 hours a week at meetings.

Mr. Ryan. So whoever volunteered ?

Mr. Marr. Th at’s it, basically.

Mr. R yan. Now tha t’s been my suspicion from the very beginning, 

tha t those who had tha t particula r point of view would tend to volunteer, because as I have said, I’ve said it before, I ’ll say it again.

I ’ve served on a city council, and you tend to volunteer, Well, who 

wants to handle the north sanitary coast district representation, who 

wants to ? You go around a circle and whoever volunteers gets the job.

Mr. Marr. If you were to prepare the city and county rosters of their 

representatives prior to April, and after April when the actual vote 

came down on the ABAG plan, you’ll find the majority of cities 

changed representatives, because they realized what the plan would 

mean, and the person who had been there for 2 or 3 years was totally in 

favor of the plan, but the rest of the council was against the plan, and 

they told him, well, you can’t be in favor if you’ve got to vote against 

it, because the council says you must. In a couple of cases people said I 

can’t, my conscience won’t let me vote against this plan, I like it, and 

they changed council representatives. That particular person was voted 

out of office.

Mr. Ryan. Then, do you think that the consistency of the 36-member 

panel was, in the end, representative of the citizens of the bay area ? 

Tha t is what your presumption would be ?

Mr. Williams. I don’t basically thin k so, because I think what the 

COLAB, for example, is against the plan basically, but they felt tha t if 

we didn’t adopt something along the lines we were going to get something shoved down our throat from the State tha t are even more severe.

Mr. R yan. Where does that come from ? I ’ve heard tha t for 2 days 

now. I t’s either tha t or the Federals are saying tha t they don’t know 

what we’re talkin g about.

Mr. Williams. Well, that’s all I heard in every meeting tha t I 

attended on the ABAG plan. If we don’t do something, something’s
164

going to be shoved down our throats t ha t’s going to be twice as d istasteful. We have to come up with a plan.

Mr. Marr. There’s a lot of letters th at float around. One—he’s got a 

copy from Dan Boatwright who’s the chairman of House Ways and 

Means Committee in the Assembly, California. A lady by the name of 

Mary Nichols, who is with the State air resources board wrote a letter 

addressed to Ms. Diane Feinstein who was the chairman of the NTF. 

Specifically, Ms. Nichols states. “If State or local regional agencies-----

Mr. Ryan. You’re quoting now from what?

Mr. Marr. From the letter from Daniel E. Boatwright, chairman of 

the House Ways and Means Committee addressed to Mr. Tom Quinn, 

chairman of the air resources board.

Mr. Ryan. He’s quoting Ms. Nichols?

Mr. Marr. He’s quoting the letter Ms. Nichols wrote to Ms. Feinstein.

Mr. Ryan. Do we have a copy of that letter?

Mr. Holcomb. I can get it for you, Mr. Ryan. We couldn’t find it this 

morning in a hurry.

Mr. Marr. Basically, the letter states th a t:

Failure of regional local agencies to adopt a plan or its equivale nt now will 

force the ARB, the a ir resources board, as a Sta te agency ultimately responsible 

for meeting the requireme nts of the Clean Air Act to take whateve r actio ns are 

within its autho rity to comply with the act and avoid imposition of Federal 

sanctions in California. If an inadequate plan is subm itted to the ARB we will 

be compelled to nullify it to the extent necessary to meet the Fed era l mandate. 

However, the analysis contained in the dr aft AQMP, illu strate s th at numerous 

land use and transp ortation measures which can only be implemented by local 

government are reasonable and should be included in the regions AQMP. Given 

the Federal requ irem ents th at the plan must provide for the implementation 

of all reasonably available controls, it seems certain th at any plan which does 

not include such locally adopted measures will res ult in the imposition of 

sanctions.

It ’s been bantered many, many times. After a while of hearing it 

all the time you-----

Mr. R yan. The staff has just shown me a letter dated February 6, 

1978, letterheaded the Air Resources Board, Sacramento, Calif., signed 

by Ms. Mary Nichols to Dear Ms. Feinstein, chairperson of environmental management task force.

So without objection, we’ll put this in the record at this point, that 

is, this particula r letter, and the letter of Dan Boatwright, chairman 

of the assembly ways and means committee.

[The material follows:]

Air Resources Board, 

Sacramento, Calif., February 6,1918.

Su bject: Adoption of bay area dr aft AQMP.

Ms. Dianne Feinstein,

Chairperson, Environmental Management Tas k Force,

Hotel Claremont, Berkeley, Calif.

Dear Ms. Feinstein : The Dr aft Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP) portion of the Draft Environm ental Management Plan for the San Francisco Bay 

Area represe nts the most comprehensive, soph isticated effort to solve an oxid ant 

ai r qua lity problem ever underta ken. The Air Resources Board (ARB) will review 

the D raft AQMP in detail, and fu rth er specific comments will be provided before 

final adoption by local governments. To ass ist the EMTF in its delibera tions 

prior to Febru ary 22,1978, here are some g eneral observations.

The 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act have increased the importance of 

the Bay Area AQMP effort greatly. These amen dments set out specific planning 

requirements and schedules for achieving federa l ai r quality standa rds. In addi-
165

tion, the amendments require the application of severe federal sanctions for 

areas which do not comply with mandates for timely achievement and maintenance of federal standards. These include the withholding of federal funds for 

transportation projects other than those beneficial to air quality, the loss of 

EPA grant funds, a ban on the construction of major industrial pollution 

sources, and a wide range of restriction s on the use of other federal monies. The 

law does not appear to permit discretion in the application of these sanctions.

Congress understood clearly the serious implications of these requirements. As 

Senator Muskie commented in presenting the conference committee report to the 

Senate “* * * this law will establish environmental protection—achievement of 

public health related ai r quality standards—as a price for new economic activity.” 

(Congressional Record—Senate, August 4, 1977, P. S13697) The actions required 

to achieve healthy a ir in the Bay Area may not be easy, but the consequences of 

failure to act are now unacceptable for economic as well as public health reasons.

Failure of regional and local agencies to adopt the plan or its equivalent now 

will force the ARB, as the state agency ultimately responsible for meeting the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act, to take whatever actions are within its 

authority to comply with the Act and avoid imposition of federal sanctions in 

California. If an inadequate plan is submitted to the ARB, we will be compelled 

to modify it to the extent necessary to meet the federal mandate. However, 

the analysis contained in the draft AQMP illustrates tha t numerous land use 

and transportation measures which can only be implemented by local government are reasonable, and should be included in the region’s AQMP. Given the 

federal requirements tha t the plan must provide for the implementation of all 

reasonably available controls it seems certain that any plan which does not 

include such locally adopted measures will re sult in the imposition of sanctions.

The responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments and for avoiding the sanctions of the Act now lies with the EMFT, ABAG, 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, and the individual cities and counties of the region. Fortunately, the Draft 

AQMP for the Bay Area already meets most of the new requirements and 

contains additional proposals which provide a viable framework to meet the 

remaining requirements. It is our view th at adoption of all of the recommended 

control measures in the Dra ft AQMP (or alternative measures which achieve 

equivalent emissions reductions) will substantially satisfy the nonattainment 

and AQMP requirements for one pollutant, oxidant. The ARB supports the 

adoption of the AQMP on the schedule established by the EMTF and recommends tha t the activities to refine the oxidant strategy and develop additional 

measures needed to attain federal standards for carbon monoxide and particulate matter begin immediately. Only through such timely adoption will the region 

be able to develop the specific plan modifications necessary to comply with the 

Clean Air Act requirements for the 1979 nonattainment area plan.

In addition, the AQMP represents the air quality element and analysis for 

the 208 Areawide Wastewater Management Plan, the Water Supply Plan, and 

the Solid Waste Management Plan, and is needed for adoption of MTC’s Regional 

Transportation Plan. Failure to adopt the AQMP will jeopardize the approval 

of all these plans because they cannot be judged as adequate in the absence 

of an AQMP which is concededly integral to all the other plans.

Although there has been vigorous local debate over the impacts of the plan 

and some organized interest groups are apparently working in concert to destroy or delay it completely, we believe responsible Bay Area officials should 

not be deterred. The plan shows that good air quality can be achieved in the 

Bay Area at a reasonable cost. The alternatives to local plan adoption are simply 

unacceptable: increased State or Federal intervention, funding cutoffs and a 

freeze on new industrial growth will be far more disruptive than anything the 

plan proposes.

We urge Bay Area officials to act promptly to adopt the basic provisions of 

the Dra ft AQMP and continue the excellent work of the EMTF by adding the 

necessary measures to meet the new Clean Air Act requirements.

Sincerely,

Mary D. Nichols, Vice Chairman.
166

Asse mbly, Califo rn ia Legisl ature,

Com mittee on Ways and Mea ns ,

February 16, 1918. R e: adoption of the San Francisco Bay area draft, air quality maintenance plan 

(AQMP).

Thomas Quinn,

Chairman, Air Resources Board,

Sta te o f California, Sacramento, Calif.

Dear Tom : I, and the Bay Area in general, are becoming increasingly concerned about the impacts of complying with the federal Clean Air Act require ­

ments on the San Francisco Bay Area. The Dow Chemical Company fiasco is 

all too fresh in my mind.

These problems aside, I am more tha n concerned about some language contain ed in a letter, date d February 6, 1978, on ARB lett erhead and signed by 

Mary D. Nichols. I must ask if you were aware of this lett er and if it repre sents 

sta te policy.

Specifically, in discussing the draft AQMP prep ared by the Association of 

Bay Area Governments staff under a con trac t with the Environmental Pro ­

tection Agency (EPA ) executed prior to the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air 

Act, Ms. Nichols sta tes:

Failure of regional and local agencies to adopt the plan or its equivalent 

now will force the ARB, as the sta te agency ultim ately responsible for 

meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act, to take whatever action s 

are with in its authority to comply with the Act and avoid imposition of 

Fed eral sanctions in Califo rnia. If an inad equate plan is subm itted to 

the ARB, we will be compelled to modify it to the extent necessary to 

meet the federa l mandate. However, the analysis contained in the draft 

AQMP illust rates th at numerous land use and transp ortation measures 

which can only be implemented by local government are reasonable, and 

should be included in the region’s AQMP. Given the fede ral requirements 

th at the plan must provide for the implementation of all reaso nably ava ilable controls, it seems certain th at any plan which does not include such 

locally adopted measures will resu lt in the imposition of sanctions.

There is a gre at deal that comes to mind as a result of this slightly amazing 

statement including, but not limited to, the following :

1. I though t it was the policy of the Clean Air Act and the Sta te (per the 

recently released Urban Strategy Report) to have a “partnership” with local 

government and not a dictato rship;

2. .How can it be suggested th at land use controls with no impact on air 

quality for 10 year s and, even then, such a margin al improvement of 3 percent 

according to a computer with a 20-50 perc ent err or fac tor be anything but 

unrea son able;

3. The lette r seems to tota lly ignore the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments 

concerning “reasonable fut ure progress” and the deletion of land use controls 

as a strategy th at EPA can manda te if rejected locally.

In my opinion, there is nothing in the Clean Air Act or the legislative charge 

of the Air Resources Board which justifies these tactics.

Sincerely,

Dan iel E. B oa tw rig ht.

Mr. Marr. Another place you might get the idea of what they were 

talking about, I had seen a copy of it and was tryin g to find it all 

week and couldn’t. Mr. DeFalco had requested from—no, I ’m sorry, 

Revan Trantor who is the executive director of AB AG, had requested 

from Mr. DeFalco’s legal opinion on the ability o f the Environmental 

Protection Agency to place sanctions, and that was to say the least, 

a very scary letter, because he not only talked about the Environ ­

mental Protection Agency sanctions, but Department of Transporta ­

tion sanctions and right down the line.

Mr. Ryan. So your contention is there is a distinct weakness in the 

present legislation which does not allow for any kind of thorough 

representational cross section to be appointed to make an environ-
167

mental management plan in a region. I would presume tha t might 

be the same problem anywhere in the country.

Mr. Marr. Oh, yes.

Mr. Ryan. And I would think then tha t one of the conclusions which 

we might consider in the subcommittee would be a recommendation 

as a result of these hearings that there be additional legislation spelling out exactly how tha t group is to be created, although I don’t 

know, from what Mr. Smith and the EP A said that, it may be too 

late in the sense th at they won’t be creating any more.

Mr. Williams. Could you give me for my own satisfaction any explanation as to why the EP A standards seem not to be uniformly 

enforced across the Nation, because we seem to be the frontrunner 

in just about every new idea and every scheme or plan tha t comes up, 

we have to be the-----

Mr. Ryan. Congressman Cunningham just said they volunteered.

Mr. Williams. I wish t ha t we had the same standards though in 

California.

Mr. Ryan. Let me ask a final question here. Knowing what you 

know now, do you believe that for the present plan submitted, if you 

believe there were no compulsion behind you, would you still support 

it?

Mr. Holcomb. No. Because it would not—the present plan would 

not—from the operating engineer’s standpoint, we voted for the plan 

simply because it stated th at we had to do something to comply with 

the Federal guidelines, and that’s why we voted. If there were no 

Federal guidelines or if we could have done it another way with a 

little more economic stability placed into it, we would have gone 

tha t way rather than the plan we have. We took the position it was 

the best we could do under the circumstances.

Mr. Williams. My feelings are the same on the basis that, and 

the reason why I ’m still against the plan basically, because it’s not 

going to provide any more work in the industrial field at all, and 

ultimately that’s going to carry over and be affecting the residential 

and commercial developers.

Mr. R yan. D o you think it will have a substantial effect on cleaning 

up the air and the water in the bav area? Besides your unions and 

your assignment and your responsibility as a member of a union and a 

leader of a union, you are also a citizen here and are subject to the 

same problems everybody else has.

Mr. Marr. I go back to what I said earlier, Mr. Ryan, that it doesn’t 

do anything for the industry that’s here. It just locks in anybody 

coming in which would have to meet environmental standards. And 

tha t’s what I say ; it would seem to me th at it would take $4% million 

to plan, would have been better to take tha t $4y2

 million in the form of 

low-interest loans to encourage a guv to upgrade his plant to meet the 

environmental standards. It would have been a lot longer down the 

road to-----

Mr. Ryan. So Mr. Smith ’s comment about the failure of some areas 

to move on this is true, and there are others that perhaps slow down 

to a walk rather than a run. What kind of economic impact are we 

liable to have here, unless the rest of the country complies, because 

of what you’ve just said ?
168

Mr. Marr. Basically, you’re going to see all the industry moving to 

another continent someplace to get away from the environmental 

laws.

Mr. Williams. My particular local union’s a good example o f th at.

They’ve been unemployed between 50 and 75 percent over the last 

3 years.

Mr. Ryan. These are the sheetmetal workers ?

Mr. Williams. No, the steamfitters.

Mr. Ryan. Steamfitters, I’m sorry. 

Mr. W e

illiams. And I thin k th at the other building trades will have 

possibly 1 year to 1 ^ years more work, because there is heavy development in the housing and residential fields at the present time. However, tha t’s going to catch up with them eventually, and there’s not »

going to be th is demand for homes and what have you, especially i f 

the State implementation plan is initiated by the present administration where we won’t have any expansion outside the city limits.

Leapfrog development is what they’re tryin g to get away from, but 

as I said earlier, I think if we follow this philosophy we would 

never reach the west coast; we’d still be Thirteen Colonies back on the 

east coast somewhere.

Mr. Ryan. You think then tha t unless this plan is implemented 

throughout the country as we have done here, it could have serious 

negative economic impact ?

Mr. Holcomb. At the same time Mr. Ryan. In other words, if they’re 

going to put a law into effect, you put it into effect all at once.

Mr. Marr. So at least we’ll be a t the bottom of the run with everybody else.

Mr. Ryan. The staff points out here, it’s on page 2 of that letter, 

she says that: “The analysis contained in the draft AQMP,” I ’m 

reading on page 2 of the letter, “can only be implemented—illustrates 

tha t numerous land-use and transportation measures which can only 

be implemented by local government are reasonable and should be 

included.”

Now this is the vice chairman of the air resources board, and Mrs.

Evans who is here today, unless I’m wrong, said she didn’t think it was 

a good idea, so perhaps there is some lack of coordination there. At •

least there is not any unanimity of opinion on the ai r resources board 

about that particular element.

Mr. Williams. H ad the land use controls board committed in the 

plan, and this is by their own calculations, would really improve the *

air quality by 4 to 7 percent by the year 2000 as I recall, and then after 

tha t particular time, we would have to change the standards or go to 

some more controls, because of the fact th at the population would be 

moving into the area. So for land-use controls to be implemented into 

the plan for only a 4 to 5, or 6, or 7, whatever percentage, i t would have 

been an improvement on the air quality.

Mr. Ryan. I s it fair to sum up your position, if you can sum up 

anything in a few words as complicated as this ; (1) You object to the 

manner in which the incident was put together being nonrepresentative 

of labor as well as other groups-----

Mr. Marr. That’s correct.

Mr. Ryan. Two, you believe that unless the law is implemented 

across the country tha t there could be serious negative economic 

impact-----
169

Mr. Williams. Most assuredly.

Mr. Ryan [continuing]. In the bay area by sta rtin g even the present 

plan ; and (3) you support the present plan only because you feel this 

is the least harmful approach that you could find, is tha t fair enough ?

Mr. Holcomb. And someone holding a 2 by 4 behind your head.

Mr. Ryan. Or perhaps a big pipe wrench.

Thank you very much. May we now have the business community; 

Mr. Paul Shepherd, Mr. William Hem, and Mr. F. E. Wilts.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. Ryan. If you would give your name for the record? Mr. Wilts? 

You’re Mr. Hern ?

Mr. Hern. I’m Mr. Hern. Mr. Wilts is not here.

Mr. Ryan. All right. Mr. Hern, why don’t you go first, and then 

we’ll have Mr. Shepherd.

STATEMENT OF WIL LIAM HERN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PENINSULA MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION

Mr. Hern. I ’d like to read this statement I presented—some of the 

comments based upon the discussion we ju st h ad with the representatives of organized labor. And we agree, by the way, with many of the 

things they said, particularly in terms of representation on the MTF.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments about the 

environmental management plan for the San Francisco Bay region. 

We regret our inability to comply with your request tha t a copy of 

our statement be supplied to your subcommittee several days in advance of the hearing, but we didn’t receive your invitation to appear 

until June 19, 1978, and so simply did not have time to prepare and 

submit a statement within the suggested timeframe. Furth er on 

June 6, 1978, the California electorate made a decision on financing 

of local government which we are sure you’re all well aware has overshadowed most other issues at this time.

Our exposure to the process of the development of an environmental 

management plan for the bay area began something over 2 years ago 

when we learned of the EP A gra nt to ABAG of $4^ million to 

accomplish this purpose. We secured speakers from ABAG who 

described the work plan to be followed and volunteered members of 

PMA for the advisory committees to the task force in the area of air 

pollution, water pollution, and solid waste elements of the plan. We 

received progress reports from those individuals and members of the 

ABAG staff, and attended the ABAG public meetings on the work 

plan sponsored by ABAG at various locations on the peninsula.

We were appalled at the lack of public interest including the business and industrial community in this program. And, we’re equally 

concerned about the disinterest of the staff preparing this plan in the 

views of those from business and industrial community who did 

involve themselves in the process. We received the staff version of the 

dra ft environmental plan in late J anu ary as did all A BAG members, 

plus interested private sector organizations, at which point the entire 

climate changed as witness the attendance and views expressed at the 

late Janu ary and early February 1978 public hearings held at various 

points in the bay area.
We appe ared at t he AB AG envir onme nta l ma nageme nt task forc e 

pub lic he aring on Fe br ua ry 1, 1978, in Sa n Jos e, and pre sen ted the 

att ache d sta tem ent. Subsequ ent to th at h earin g, several of ou r tech nical com mittees sent to AB AG w ritten commen ts on t he dra ft plan . We 

mo nitore d the pla n’s revisio n at the AB AG EM TF level, the AB AG 

region al pl an ni ng committee level, a nd at the AB AG e xecu tive board 

level, and each time made some ad ditio na l comm ents on the revised 

plan.

Fi na lly , on Ju ne 7, 1978, by a lette r, we advised the presiden t of 

AB AG —Di rid on , on our su pp ort of th e plan as a dopte d b y the executive b oard, a nd urged its adopti on by th e gen eral assem bly which was 

done on Ju ne 10, 1978. In ou r lette r of Ju ne 7, 1978, copy attach ed, 

we once again expressed o ur concern about the possib le unequal imple ­

me nta tio n of the Clean Air Ac t na tio na lly by the En vironm en tal 

Prote ction Agenc y, which concerns also men tion ed in the appro ved 

environme nta l m ana gem ent plan .

We w ent on to offer our s up po rt in foresta lling any efforts by St ate 

agencies and, indeed, the En vironm en tal Prote ction Agenc y to return 

some elem ents to the pla n which have been evalu ated and rejected 

du ring the ABA G developmental process of the envir onme nta l man ­

age ment pla n. We pointed out th at the plan in ma ny par ts was the 

res ult o f effective comprom ises, w hich wou ld be und one if the review ­

ing agencies were to add fu rther restricti on s to the p lan th at h ad been 

discarde d in the development process.

So, o ur cur re nt atti tu de is sup po rt fo r the EM P i f it is not chang ed 

in any major way by the review ing agencies, and if there is equal 

imple me nta tion of th is plan as ap pr op riat e throug ho ut the Un ite d 

Sta tes. Should this not occur, the n once again , Ca lif ornia, an d espe ­

cially the bay area , w ill be com petitively dis advantaged a ga inst oth ers 

in th is c ou ntr y and abroa d who do no t hav e to suffer un de r the rules 

and r egulati on s enforced in this area. W e kno w t hat this can only result 

in ever-inc rea sin g n um ber o f emplo yers alr eady in the are a de term ining to leave, and those who might have elected to—de cid ing to go 

elsewhere.

In rega rd to yo ur question as to how th e Fe de ral env ironm ent al 

control req uir em ents sho uld b e chang ed, we sug gest th at they should 

be br ou gh t into t he rea l world. We b elieve th at stan da rd s sho uld not 

be set, unless they are reali stically atta inab le in establ ished tim eframes. 

Had this b een done e arl y on, then t he re w ould not hav e been th e need 

fo r appli catio ns fo r time exte nsions gr ud ging ly acceded to by the 

E P A an d th e Congress.

We u rge th at any review of cu rren t sta nd ards or the estab lishm ent 

of new ones mu st tak e fu lly into acc oun t th ei r atta in ab ility in the 

prescr ibed tim e, as well as the economic costs and consequences of the 

req uired action. We have asked ou r tech nical com mittees to develop 

a positi on pa pe r responsive to y ou r qu estion as to how F ed eral en vir on ­

mental c ontrol requirem ents shou ld be specifica lly chang ed, a nd would 

exnect to send th at alo ng to you in the nea r fu tur e.

In rearard to Con gressm an Cu nn ingh am ’s comment th at we volun ­

teer, we don ’t. We a re volun teered by oth ers to be ou t i n fron t. Th is is 

not the des ire, in mv opinion, of the gr ea t bulk of the peo ple in the 

bay area. We wa nt to con tinu e to live in a nice place, bu t th e volun ­

tee rin g, believe me, is not done by th e people of the ba y are a. I t ’s done,
171

in ma ny cases, by it s electe d officials, b ut in mo re cases by its app oin ted 

officials an d it s bu rea ucrat s.

We, too, felt bad ly. I sho uld say th at I guess the business and 

indu stria l com mu nity came out be tte r th an org anize d labor. We ha d 

2 on the 46; 1 fro m the i nd us trial com mu nity an d 1 from the b uilding 

indu str y. My impre ssion is th at the ABA G e xecu tive bo ard made the 

decision as to who was to be on the E M TF. I t was also my imp ression 

th at most of t he people ap po int ed were reco mmended by the staff of 

AB AG . Most, I ’d say, over ha lf of the m were elected officials. The 

balanc e were po tp ou rri, all kin ds of interest groups in the bay area. 

Our rep res entat ive s who volun teered fo r th e task forc e in the in di ­

vidu al areas came bac k wi th the same sto ry you he ard from labor.

> Th ey di dn ’t listen to us. Th ey di dn ’t ev en car e wh at we h ad to say. 

I f the staff did n’t agree w ith w ha t th ey had to say , th en th e s taff ei ther 

outvo ted them by lobbying clear t hr ou gh th e me eting u nt il eve rybody 

le ft in dis gust, or in th e alternative, the people who believed more 

str on gly, envir onme nta l controls an d no -grow th th an we do, ou tvoted them . O ver tim e, o ur people j us t go t tired. They are businessmen, 

they a re no t staff p eople. Th ey ’re there on th ei r own tim e, ta ki ng time 

away from t he ir own businesses to tr y to he lp.

- As you note fro m ou r sta tem ent, we di dn ’t ann oun ce un til Ju ne 7 

th at we would su pp or t th e E M P. We ha d gr ea t misgivin gs. We s till do. 

In answer t o the ques tion you migh t ask t hat you asked la bor: W ould 

we supp ort it if we di dn ’t believe th at eit he r th e St ate or the Fe de ral 

Government w ould impose some thing on it? No, we w ould not. An d 1 

wo uld n’t say any one per son sa id it, maybe Ms. Nic hols d id, I w ouldn ’t 

be su rpris ed if she did, bu t it was more rumo rs betw een th e staffs 

which t hen go t out to the pub lic, an d as one of these gen tlem en said , 

if you he ar i t oft en eno ugh , vo n ten d to believe it ’s tr ue .

► An d of cours e, in th at are a by the way, we’ve seen th e Fe de ral 

Gover nment come in wi th mandates. I t ’s no t imp ossible fo r the Fed ­

era l Governm ent to preempt, and it ’s no t imp ossible for the State 

gov ernment to preempt wh atev er’s lef t. So, we weren ’t too surpris ed 

th at t hat k ind of p ree mpti on might be possible.

Mr. Ryan . Th an k you, M r Hern, f or a v ery comprehe nsive an d excellent statem ent .

Mr. She ph erd ?

STATEMENT OF PAUL SHEPHERD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARKS

Mr. S hepher d. I ’ll ju st read some high lig hts fro m our w ritte n t es timony w hich you hav e.

We are practiti on er s p ar tici pa ting on a da y-b y-day basis in th e business of lo catin g new offices and ind us try i n th e San Fran cis co Bay area. 

We hav e sev eral observat ion s rega rd ing the process th at was uti lized 

in deve loping the EM P.

Th e a ir quality main ten ance pl an po rti on of the en vir onme nta l m an ­

agement p lan m ust now re tu rn to a special purpose a rm of g overn me nt, 

the Cal ifo rn ia A ir Resources Bo ard, in orde r to be incorporate d int o 

the State im ple me nta tio n pla n. I t is un cle ar as to wh eth er th e ai r 

reso urces bo ard will signif ica ntly mo dif y ABAG’s p la n ; i t is equ ally 

uncle ar to u s as the res ults of t he final review bv EPA . Eac h level of 

governm ent threaten s the low er level wi th denia l of EM P ap prov al
172

by a remote government level unless certain regulations are incorporated, creating an atmosphere of nonresponsibility with reference to 

a third-party authority.

Lack of private sector role in the AB AG plan : AB AG attempted 

to create a broad representative group of 45 individuals called the 

environmental management task force, to guide staff in the formulation of the EMP. I t is our view tha t this group represented local government first and environmental interest second.

There was no direct representation by an individual working directly for a corporation in land development or manufacturing. This re presentation was limited to two associations which under difficult circumstances performed admirably. ABAG attempted to broaden its 

base by forming several technical advisory committees into which 

the private sector seriously attempted to play a meaningful role. However, as it developed, these TAC ’s were advisory to ABAG staff only 

and met only as requested by ABAG staff, which was usually for 2 or 3 

hours every 3 or 4 months. Thus, any representation tha t the ABAG 

plan enjoyed broadly based in put from the private sector is a myth.

Trade-ofi policy.—This appears to be the policy that is currently 

operative. Government is creating the rules, but is not assisting the 

private sector in accomplishing solutions. As we understand it, this 

policy means that private industry must purchase pollution credits 

from other industries, therebv closing the other industry, or by paying 

for the cleanup efforts of this other industry. In our view, this could 

only work in cases involving very high income operations wherein 

this very inordinate expense could somehow be economically justified. 

Of course, this is unfair of the small operation or even the marginal 

larger operation. The biggest problem could be in finding people technically qualified to understand the compliance jargon and establish a 

plan t hat would finally be approved by the reactive air pollution people. Also, it is unclear to us how the AQMP will incorporate this present trade-off policy.

What this policy has done, ironically is to create pollution rights 

which have economic value. It deters industry, which is polluting, from 

any desire for cleaning up, because they have something they can sell. 

So the whole policy works against the objective of clean air and clear 

water.

Cost.—The implementation of the environmental management plan 

will cost millions of dollars ann ually; nobody’s quite sure how much 

although E PA ’s regional administrator, Paul DeFalco, was quoted at 

an ABAG meeting: as saying th at: “It would have severe effects on the 

economy for the San Francisco region.” The result of these costs will 

be a combination of increased taxes—unemployment, as you’ve heard 

from the labor representatives—and additional costs to the consumer 

tha t are passed on by private industry. Clearly, the process in which 

we find ourselves should be specifically cognizant of these costs, rather 

than simply making passing references.

Congress must recognize the need for procedures tha t stimulate 

capital investment and employment by encouraging new industrial 

plants, rather than discouraging them. Unfortunately, most of this 

testimony in this manner tends to talk about heavy industry, Dow 

Chemical and oil refineries. They are not the only industries affected. 

The light industries, the electronic industries—the ones that every-
173

body seems to want—they’re also affected. T hat very seldom appears 

in discussions of these m atters and that, of course, is the type of industry that most of our industrial parks are involved in locating, light 

industry and distribution facilities. So we are concerned—we don’t 

know where to go, what the rules are if we want to s tart a new industrial park. They seem to vary from day to day.

We have our series of recommendations that, as others have suggested, the Federal Clean Air standards be modified so as not to be 

j so strictly determined by reasons of unsubstantiated and assumed

health impacts. Otherwise, the whole EM P procedure is a waste of 

time. And that’s basically our point about this EMP procedure. 

Millions of dollars have been spent for a plan which is completely sub-

• ject now to EP A air quality control—superseding the law—and the 

whole thing has been a grand waste of time. A lot of people have spent 

a great deal of time and money to come up with it, but as far as industrial location is concerned, it has no meaning at all, because the air 

quality control board will make the decisions.

Mr. Ryan. Thank you very much, Mr. Shepherd. I think that between the two of you, you’ve answered a good many questions th at I 

asked of the labor group, but I’d like you to elaborate, if you could, 

on this subject: One point on the trade-off policy. This is new, and I 

would like for you to explain that in a little bit more detail if you could. 

Wha t is the equity that is involved here ?

Mr. Shepherd. Well, if you are an industry planning to come in, and, 

this was supposed to be a method to allow a new polluting industry to 

come in, such as a refinery, the way that you could come in would be to 

buy up other pollution. The theory being that if this new polluter came 

in, the net pollution in the total region would not be increased by 

removing existing polluters, and from the Ma-and-Pop drycleaning 

establishment to existing oil refineries or powerplants.

Mr. Ryan. How do you buy in ? I ’m not quite sure th at I------

Mr. Shepherd. You buy in by being willing to shut them down, 

pay them off.

Mr. Ryan. Suppose I have a national chain of drycleaning plants 

throughout the country, and operate a very large wholesale operation

* and need a plant of say 50,000 square feet in South San Francisco at 

Cabot, Cabot & Forbes.

Mr. Shepherd. All right.

Mr. Ryan. All righ t. I want to move on and long-term lease the 

property, and recognizing the need that there would be pollutants and 

so on in the work, I ’m prepared to conform to whatever the standards 

are in the area, of course, but how would I be affected ?

Mr. Shepherd. On your own initiative, you must submit an application which demonstrates tha t you have cleaned up, or shut down, or 

eliminated as much pollution as you’re going to contribute. T hat might 

mean buying equipment for somebody else. You might be buying it 

for your competitor.

Mr. Ryan. Who do you have to prove it to ?

Mr. Shepherd. The air quality control board.

Mr. Ryan. The Sta te air quality control board ?

Mr. Shepherd. Well, a regional in this case, subject to ARB.

Mr. R yan. And they ’re the ones who require th at you do that?

35-395 0 - 79 - 12
174

Mr. Shepherd. Yes, this is supposed to be a liberal policy which was 

developed in this-----

Mr. Ryan. I s it a Federal law ?

Mr. Shepherd. This was developed by this regional administrator 

in this region, and it’s supposed to be a liberalization by the EPA .

Mr. Ryan. You say regional administrator of the EPA ?

Mr. S hepherd. Yes. It was later adopted by the—I believe nationally, federally by the E PA, but it creates a sense as I say of pollution 

rights which have economic value.

Mr. Ryan. Existing plans. Now what you do is keep it existing so 

you can sell it.

Mr. Shepherd. Exactly.

Mr. Hern. There’s been another suggestion in tha t area, but I am 

not disagreeing with anything Mr. Shepherd said, but you could bank 

your—the diminution and materials tha t are contrary to the regulations, that you could put in some new equipment which would diminish 

your emissions. You could put that in the bank, and then if you or your 

neighbor wanted to do something else, and I think tha t came out of 

southern California, and I believe it was sponsored by the local air 

pollution board down there.

I don’t know whether tha t’s still possible. I guess if Paul says so. 

the other one must be, but these have been the kinds of discussions of 

how new industry could come in, but what you say could be true. You 

could just sit there and—until the right time, and a guy came along 

and-----

Mr. Ryan. Still-----

Mr. S hepherd. Sure, it’s absolutely current to anybody cleaning up 

his own facility. Their intent was good, but they don’t understand 

how to-----

Mr. Ryan. Well, their inten t was good in trying to charge money 

for parking lots, too, and they changed their mind after enough Congressmen were informed, and that’s the purpose of this investigation, 

to inquire into the weaknesses so that the thing is changed around. I f 

tha t has any kind of national implications, th at’s got to be changed.

Mr. Hern. Congressman, there’s one area I would hope your subcommittee might get for some of us that we’ve never been able to get 

from anybody else, at least I haven’t been able to. We have been told, 

and you’ll see from th e chart up there, back in April, the magic day 

tha t the general assembly had to pass something, well, the ABAG 

Executive Board told them to go to heck, and then suddenly got the 

postponement to June 10. I just read SC AG’s testimony, and they’re 

not going to do anything until November 1. They’re not even going 

to do as much on November 1 as we have already done.

Mr. Ryan. Now we have the E PA man himself saying that some of 

them haven’t even complied at all. And the other thing I heard was 

tha t we’re way out in front.

What scares the heck out of me, I don’t like being tha t far out in 

front. Perhaps, if we ever go through this kind of charade again, at 

least the ground rules would be well understood by everybody.

Why did ABAG have apparently a different time schedule and 

different harassment levels than anybody else in the United States? 

Are we tha t much worse than anybody else in the United States, or 

was it just an eagerness to get out in front again ?
175

I think with the means of some pretty careful study, because it ’s obvious that the basic legislation to allow local people, locally elected people to have control of the means by which we try to clean up our air and water is still an excellent principle. Somewhere along the line 

it slipped between the cracks. And to some extent, I can’t measure the amount, but I think tha t the objections t ha t are raised by labor and by business today, this 

afternoon, are well made and very serious. You cannot have a healthy environment for people without hav­ ing some kind of balance there, and if there is pollution of w ater and air, there’s also pollution of jobs, and job pollution is a current prob­ lem in the bay area as well as elsewhere, and they’ve been talking about job pollution I suppose; we’re going to talk about water and air, 

and tha t has to be considered. I appreciate very much your coming, Mr. Cunningham. I want to thank you all for coming and for having the patience to come here on a Saturday afternoon. I would like to point out that, well, first of all, we have several groups who have submitted statements: Regional Citizens Forum; Political Action Coalition for the Environment; Association of Bay Area Recycling Groups and Environmentalists [ABA RG E]; and testimony of Mr. Fra nk Wilts of the San Leandro Manufacturers’ Association. They’ll all be included in the record. They’ve submitted statements, but haven’t come themselves. In any case, I want to thank you all for being here, and for sub­ mitting statements, or for making the comments tha t you have. You’ve certainly been extremely useful to the subcommittee, and I can guarantee that the repo rt will reflect all the comments tha t have been made here, and the recommendation I thin k will improve the 

situation, if we can, as this thing moves along nationally. Finally, I think on a note of regret, I would like to point out that there is only one paper in the entire San Francisco Bay area that’s 

been represented in this hearing for the 2 days. I ’m rathe r pleased to say it is the San Mateo Times in San Mateo County, and perhaps it’s because of the coverage, that there’s been more feistiness in San Mateo County regarding this plan than any other county in the bay area, because they’re bette r inform ed; but I point this out publicly because I thin k those of you who are here and who do represent special interests and who those special interests are need to recognize the fact the public is not sufficiently aware of what’s going on, and just as you can raise heck with the Federal Gov­ ernment because we come and ask you, I think you should make some 

kind of comments to the newspapers that are involved. They’re not here. Any time a man can come from Washington and say tha t within the next 5 to 7 years there will be an expenditure of $3 billion to have a particular unknown economic effect in the bay area tha t will massively change the way every person in the bay area lives and breathes, and not have it covered, have your comments covered, so the people can understand what vour point of view is, we suffer from a massive lack of communication ability in the bay area, and part of the fault lies I suppose in the fact that the chairman of the sub­ committee comes from this area, and as a consequence, of course— 

and so on.
176

If you were having the hearings in Cincinnati, I’m certain that 

the coverage would be pretty heavy. This is part of the problem.

I think if you have a responsibility, all of you, to make known to 

the publishers and editors of the papers tha t are involved, your 

dissatisfaction with their failure to communicate what I believe to 

be one of the most crucial problems now facing us in the bay area, 

if it’s true tha t we are tha t far in front, we need to be extremely 

cautious about how far and how fast we go.

Than k you very much for coming, and if there are no further-----

A. Voice F rom Audience. Excuse me, I ’m from the coalition and I 

notice that we are not on the agenda-----

Mr. Ryan. I think in view of the time and the—of the committee 

we will have to call it—except for COLAB. You have submitted a 

written statement?

A Voice From Audience. Yes.

Mr. Ryan. Would you mind then submitting anything further 

you have to say as a result of the hearings today and yesterday— 

would you mind submitting it in writing, because I can only hold 

this committee here as long as they can stay.

I ’m committed myself almost immediately, and Mr. Cunningham is, 

too, and since t ha t’s the reason for the hearing, I thin k tha t takes 

care of the reason for getting rid of it.

Could you submit, then, a supplementary statement for the record, if 

you wish, and it will be included in the record and be made a part of it ? 

Thank you.

With that I think we will adjourn.

. [Whereupon, at 2:12 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
A P P E N D I X E S

Appendix 1.—Statements Submitted for the Record

j POSITION STATEMENT

* ' O N

AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN

(AQMP)

1

 * ’ • • ' . t . * . '

Develope d By

BAY AREA LUNG ASSOCIATIONS

Ala meda

, San Fr an cisc o

Contra Costa - Solano

Redwood Empire

*

San Mateo

Santa Clara - San Benito

January 1978

(177)
178

T h e A m e ric a n L un g A s s o c ia ti o n , a s a h e a lt h o rg a n iz a ti o n , is deeplyc o n c e rn e d ab out th e p r o g re s s m ad e to w a rd th e a tt a in m e n t an d m ain te n a n c e of

th e p r im a ry a ir q u ali ty sta n d a rd s s e t to p ro te c t h e a lt h . M an y of th e s e s ta n ­

d a rd s p ro te c t th e h e a lt h of p eo p le w it h lu ng d is e a s e . S u b sta n ti a l ti m e an d

e ffo rt h a s go ne in to th e d ev elo p m en t of t h e D ra ft E n v ir o n m e n ta l M anagem ent

t

P la n an d its com ponent, th e A ir Q u a li ty M ain te n an ce P la n . T he L un g A s s o c ­

ia ti o n A ffi li a te s in t he B ay A re a w ould li k e to e x p re s s th e ir a p p re c ia ti o n fo r

th e o p p o rt u n it y to p a rtic ip a te on th e E M T F an d A ir Q uali ty M a in te n an ce P la n — •

T e c h n ic a l A d v is o ry C o m m it te e .

B a ckgro und:

In 19 70 th e F e d e ra l C le a n A ir A ct w as p a s s e d . A cco rd in g to p ro v is io n s

in th e A c t, am b ie n t a ir q u ali ty s ta n d a rd s w e re s e t fo r th e p ro te c ti o n of public 

h e a lt h and w e lf a re . S ta n d a rd s h av e b een s e t fo r to ta l su sp en d ed p a rti c u la te 

m a tte r (T S P ), su lf u r dio xid e (S O ^) , c a rb o n m onoxid e (C O ), h y d ro c a rb o n s (H C) , 

n it ro g e n 'dio xi de (N O^) , and p h o to c h e m ic a l o x id an ts . T he A c t g iv es th e s ta te s 

re s p o n s ib il it y fo r devel opin g an d su b m it ti n g s ta te im p le m e n ta ti o n pla ns (S IP ) to

E P A th a t co n ta in m e a s u re s to a tta in an d m a in ta in n ati o n al a m b ie n t a ir q uali ty

s ta n d a rd s . T he f i r s t C a li fo rn ia S IP , su b m it te d to th e E PA in F e b r u a ry , 19 72,

w as fo un d to be d e fi c ie n t b e c a u s e i t did n o t in clu d e a d eq u ate c o n tr o l s tra te g ie s

f o r a tt a in in g an d m ain ta in in g a ir q u a li ty s ta n d a rd s . A s a r e s u lt of s e v e ra l c o u rt

s u its , E PA re q u ir e d C a li fo rn ia to su b m it a tra n s p o rta ti o n c o n tr o l pla n (T C P)

•t o c o r r e c t so m e of th e in a d e q u a c ie s of t h e S IP . T he s ta te fin a ll y e x e rc is e d it s 

opti on to p r e p a re a T C P an d r e s p o n s ib ili ty fo r th e p la n fo r th e San F ra n c is c o 

B ay A re a w hic h w as d ele g a te d to th e M e tr o p o li ta n T ra n s p o rta ti o n C o m m is sio n .
179

A c o u rt o r d e r le d to E P A r e q u ire m e n ts fo r th e id e n ti fi c a ti o n of a ir q u a li ty 

m a in te n a n c e a r e a s —a r e a s th a t h av e th e p o te n ti a l fo r lo ng te r m a i r p o ll u ti o n 

p ro b le m s . T h e San F ra n c is c o B ay A re a w as id e n ti fi e d a s su ch an a r e a in Ju n e , 

19 74 , by th e A ir R e s o u rc e s B o a rd and in S e p te m b e r, 19 75 , by th e E P A . E PA 

re g u la ti o n s re q u ire th e d ev elo p m en t of an a i r q u a li ty m a in te n a n c e pla n (A QM P) 

f o r e ach a r e a . T h e A Q M P is to d ev elo p lo n g - te rm c o n tr o l s tr a te g ie s fo r a tta in ­

in g and m a in ta in in g a ir q u a li ty s ta n d a rd s . T h is p la n w il l in clu d e la n d u s e an d 

tr a n s p o r ta tio n c o n tr o l m e a s u re s and p ro g ra m s fo r e n fo rc e m e n t.

In m i d - 197 5, th e ARB e s ta b li s h e d th e B ay A re a A ir Q u ali ty M ain te n an ce 

P la n - P o li c y T a s k F o rc e to o v e rs e e d ev elo p m en t of th e P la n . T he A s so c ia ti o n 

of B ay A re a G o v e rn m e n ts h ad fo rm e d th e E n v ir o n m e n ta l M anagem ent T a s k F o rc e 

(E M T F ) to d ev elo p w a te r q u a li ty p ro g ra m s u n d e r th e F e d e r a l W ate r P o ll u ti o n 

C o n tr o l A c t. T h e se tw o T a s k F o rc e s w e re com b in ed by a re s o lu ti o n fro m th e 

A Q M P - P o li c y T a s k F o rc e in J a n u a ry 19 76 , le ad in g to th e in te g ra ti o n of w a te r 

q u a li ty an d a i r q u ali ty p la nnin g p ro g ra m s u n d e r th e E M T F .

T he A Q M P w il l be d ev elo p ed by a jo in t te c h n ic a l sta ff le d by AB AG w it h 

su p p o rt fro m th e B ay A re a A ir P o ll u ti o n C o n tr o l D is tr ic t, th e M e tr o p o li ta n 

T ra n s p o rta tio n C o m m is sio n , and th e A ir R e s o u rc e s B o a rd .

In p r e p a rin g th e A Q M P fo r th e San F ra n c is c o B ay A re a , th e r e a r e fo u r 

a i r p o ll u ta n ts of in te r e s t: su sp e n d e d p a r tic u la te s , c a rb o n m on o x id e, s u lf u r 

d io x id e, and o x id a n t. T h e s ta n d a rd s fo r p a r tic u la te s an d oxid an t a r e v io la te d 

m o s t oft en in th e L iv e rm o re and S an ta C la r a v a lle y s , alt h o u g h oxid ant p ro b le m s 

o c c u r t h ro u g h o u t th e re g io n . S u lf u r d io x id e p ro b le m s e x is t m a in ly in th e C a rqu in ez S tra its an d c a rb o n m onoxid e p ro b le m s a r e m o s t s e v e re in S an J o s e .
180

T h e A QM P re c o m m e n d a ti o n s w il l re q u ire a c ti o n by a ll le v e ls of g o v e rn ­

m en t to c o n tr o l v ir tu a ll y a ll s o u rc e s of a i r p o ll u ti o n . T he p la n re c o m m e n d a ti o n s 

a r e div id ed in to fo u r c a te g o rie s :

1) c o n tr o l o v e r sta ti o n a ry s o u rc e s

2) - c o n tr o l o v er m obil e s o u r c e s , p r im a rily c a r s , bu t o th e r v e h ic le s a s '

w e ll

3) tra n s p o rta tio n c o n tr o ls

4) la n d u s e chan ges

H ealt h R e a so n s fo r A tt ain m en t an d M a in te n an ce of A ir Q u ali ty S ta n d a rd s

E x p o su re to a i r poll u ti o n ab ove a m b ie n t a ir q u ali ty s ta n d a rd s is a s s o c ia te d

w it h a sig n if ic a n t d is e a se e x c e s s th a t, in its cu m u la ti v e im p a c t, r e p re s e n ts a

v e ry s u b s ta n ti a l b u rd en . H y d ro c a rb o n s com bin e w ith n it ro g e n oxid es to p ro duce

ozo ne an d o th e r noxi ous p h o to c h e m ic a l o x id a n ts . In ad d it io n to th e obvio us an d

te m p o ra ry e ff e c ts of o x id a n ts — th e b u rn in g e y e s , th ro a t ir r ita tio n , co ughin g,

an d s h o rtn e s s of b re a th —th e re a r e p o te n ti a ll y m o re s e rio u s an d lo n g -la sti n g 

o n e s . S c ie n ti fi c evid en ce in d ic a te s th a t oz one in c re a s e s su s c e p ti b il it y to r e s ­

p ira to ry in fe c ti o n s an d m ay in duce c h ro n ic r e s p ir a to ry d is e a s e . In com bin ati o n

w it h s u lf u r d io x id e, th e a d v e rs e e ffe c ts e a c h h a s on th e lu ngs a r e in te n s if ie d .

N it ro g e n o x id es, to o , h e ig h te n v u ln e ra b il it y to r e s p ir a to r y in fe c ti o n . T h ese

p o ll u ta n ts a ls o a g g ra v a te e x is ti n g r e s p ir a to r y d is e a s e and o ff er th e p o ss ib il it y 

of c h ro n ic r e s p ir a to ry im p a ir m e n t. A b so rb ed on a e r o s o ls , th e ir e ffe c ts a re

str e n g th e n e d fo r th e w o rs e . C a rb o n m onoxid e cu ts do wn th e b o d y 's su pply of

oxygen . A s a r e s u lt, it can a ffe c t b e h a v io r in n o rm a l p eo p le , a g g ra v a te c a rd io ­

v a s c u la r d is e a s e s an d d e c re a s e th e c h a n c e s of su rv iv a l of th o se who su ffe r fr o m

so m e of th e s e h e a r t a il m e n ts
181

Su lfur oxid es and th eir co m p anio n s, su lf u ric aci d and p a rti cu la te s, hav e

lo ng bee n a sso c ia te d wi th th e in fa m ou s a ir polluti on ep is o d es of Sonor a, M eu se

V a ll ey , and Lon don . Sulfur dio xid e alo ne is kn ow n to in c r e a s e ai rw ay r e s is t ­

ance and thus m ak e bre ath in g d if fi cu lt . In co m bin at io n with a e r o s o l p arti cu ­

la te s , it in te rfe r es'w it h th e lun gs* d e fe n se s . Stu die s poi nt to si gn if ic an t eff e cts

on illn e s s and dea th . S m a ll s iz e a e r o s o ls a re a m ajo r co n cern . They p resen t

a sp e c ia l da nge r b eca u se th ey ca n be in hal ed dee ply in to th e vuln er able part s of

th e lu ngs and ca rry nox io us g a se s w ith th em .

C hil dre n, th e e ld e r ly , a ll ast h m a ti cs and p erso n s w ith ch ro nic resp ir a to ry

an d h ea rt d is e a s e a re p a rti cu la rly su scep ti b le to a ir p oll u ti on . T h ese gr ou ps

co m p ris e a su b st an ti al se gm en t of th e pop ula ti on . G en erall y, on ly th e m ore

se v e r e ly ill or im pair ed in d iv id u als in th e se po pula tion gr ou ps a re at g rea te st

r is k of ill e ffe c ts fr om m in or ex cu rsio n s ab ov e th e a ir qual ity st andard s, but

b ecau se of the la r g e po pula tion of su sc e p tib le s , ev en a sm a ll pro por tion of a ffl ic te d ad ds up to a la rge public hea lt h burd en . The N ati onal A ca dem y of

S c ie n ces e sti m a te s th at th e p ro port io n of su scep ti b le s w it hin th e po pu lation to

be appro xim ate ly 20%.

The A ir Q ual ity M ain te nan ce P la n

T he goal of th e AQM P is att ai nm en t an d m ain te nance of S ta te and F ed era l

a ir qual ity st andard s a s exp ed it io u sly as p ra c ti c a b le . W hile certa in F ed era l

a ir qual ity st andar ds are bei ng m et in th e Sa n F r a n c is c o Ba y A rea , ot he r p ri n ­

cip a l st andard s a re not . T he st an dar ds a re base d on th e pro te ct io n of pu blic

h ea lt h . Of p arti cu la r con cern to th e Lu ng A sso cia ti o n a re the fo llow in g p oll u tan ts : su sp en ded p arti cu la te m a tt er, ca rb on m onoxid e, su lf ur dio xid e, and
182

p h o to ch em ic al oxid an t. T he D ra ft R e co m m e n d ati o n s fo r th e A ir Q u ali ty M ain ­

te n a n c e P la n a d d re s s on ly one p o ll u ta n t- -p h o to c h e m ic a l o x id an t. T h is is u n a c ­

c e p ta b le .

T h e San F ra n c is c o B ay A ir B a sin is a n o n -a tt a in m e n t a r e a f o r c a rb o n 

m onoxid e an d p a rtic u la te , y e t th e D ra ft R e co m m e n d ati o n s do not in clu d e c o n tr o l 

m e a s u re s d ir e c te d to w ard a tt a in m e n t of th e s e s ta n d a rd s . S ta ff p ro p o se s th is 

be done th ro u g h th e co nti nuin g p la n n in g p r o c e s s sin c e v io la ti o n s of th e c a rb o n 

m onoxid e and p a rti c u la te s ta n d a rd s a r e li m it e d to a few "h o t s p o ts " an d a r e no t 

se e n as a re g io n -w id e p ro b le m . San J o s e is su ch a "h o t sp o t" w it h th e F e d e ra l 

e ig h t- h o u r a v e ra g e s ta n d a rd fo r c a rb o n m onoxid e v io la te d 61 day s in 19 76 . The 

C le an A ir A ct c a lls fo r a tt a in m e n t of F e d e r a l a ir q u ali ty sta n d a rd s by 198 2 w ith 

th e .e x cep ti o n of p h o to ch em ic al o x id an t and ca rb o n m onoxid e w h e re ex te n sio n s 

a r e a v a il a b le u n d er c e r ta in c o n d it io n s. It i s ou r u n d e rsta n d in g th a t a go od fa it h 

e ffo rt m u s t be sh ow n to re c e iv e an e x te n s io n bey on d 19 82 . T h e D ra ft R e co m ­

m e n d a ti o n s a p p e a r to fa ll s h o r t. M obil e so u rc e s acco u n t fo r 90% of th e ca rb o n 

m onoxid e e m is s io n s . T h e se e m is s io n s can be s u b s ta n ti a ll y re d u c e d by th e

ad o p ti o n an d im p le m e n ta ti o n of m o re s tr in g e n t e x h au st e m is s io n sta n d a rd s a n d .....

th ro u g h tr a n s p o rta tio n a c ti o n s to re d u c e v e h ic le u s e . F o r e x a m p le , G e n e ra l 

P o li c y 3, A cti on 13 u n d e r th e A Q M P re c o m m e n d a ti o n s, th e im p le m e n ta ti o n of 

a n au to c o n tr o l zo ne in th e C e n tr a l B u s in e s s D is tric t of S an F ra n c is c o , is lis te d 

a s a c o n tr o l m e a s u re fo r th e re d u c ti o n of h y d ro c a rb o n s . A cti o n 13 is a ls o p ro ­

je c te d to have c o n s id e ra b le im p a c t on th e re d u c ti o n of CO e m is s io n s b e c a u se 

o f re d u c e d v eh ic le co n g e sti o n . A c ti o n 13 sh ould be ex p anded as an in it ia l cont r o l m e a s u re in an o v e ra ll s tr a te g y to re d u c e CO e m is s io n s to in clu de o th er 

C O "h o t sp o ts " su ch a s S an J o s e .
183

F e d e r a l an d S ta te s ta n d a rd s fo r su sp e n d e d p a rtic u la te m a tte r have b een 

ex cee d ed in p o rti o n s of th e San F ra n c is c o B ay re g io n . T h e F e d e r a l sta n d a rd 

w as ex cee d ed in L iv e rm o re in both 1975 an d 19 76. T he s ta te sta n d a rd w as 

e x cee d ed in L iv e rm o re 41% of th e sa m p li n g day s an d in San J o s e on 20% of th e 

sa m p li n g d a y s . T he s ta n d a rd is e x p re s s e d a s an an n u al g e o m e tr ic m ean an d 

th e v a lu e s a r e giv en in m ic r o g ra m s p e r cubic m e te r , w hic h is a m e a s u re of 

w eig h t. T he m o st r e s p ir a b le p a r tic le s a r e v e ry s m a ll w it h d ia m e te rs of 0 .1 - 

0 .5 m ic ro n s an d th e ir c o n tr ib u ti o n to th e to ta l w eig h t is s m a ll in re la ti o n s h ip 

to th e ir sig n if ic a n c e . T h e r e s p ir a b le s iz e p a r tic le is not a d eq u ate ly a d d re s s e d 

in c u r r e n t a m b ie n t a ir q u a li ty s ta n d a rd s . H o w ev er, b a s e d on v io la ti o n s of c u r ­

r e n t sta n d a rd s we w ou ld re c o m m e n d in itia l c o n tr o l m e a s u re s be in clu ded in th e

A Q M P .

T h e San F ra n c is c o B ay A re a h a s b een d e c la re d an a tt a in m e n t a r e a fo r 

s u lf u r d io x id e . W e a r e c o n c e rn e d , 'h o w e v e r, th a t th e p r im a r y a ir q u ali ty s ta n ­

d a rd fo r su lf u r dio xid e does no t n e c e s s a rily o ff e r h e a lt h p ro te c ti o n a g a in s t a tm o s ­

p h e ric tr a n s fo rm a tio n p ro d u c ts su ch a s su lf a te s and s u lf u ric a c id a e r o s o ls .

T h e re is c o n s id e ra b le ev id en ce th a t so m e of t h e s e tra n s fo rm a tio n p ro d u c ts a r e 

b io lo g ic a ll y m o re re a c tiv e th a n t h e p a re n t co m pound.

S u lf u r dio x id e e m is s io n s can be e x p e c te d to in c r e a s e su b s ta n ti a ll y w ith 

re g io n w id e c u rta ilm e n t of n a tu ra l g a s . E m is s io n s ca n be ex p ecte d to in c re a s e 

a ls o , p a r tic u la rly in th e in d u s tria liz e d a r e a s a s m o re fu e l o il b eg in s to be u se d 

in th e B ay A re a . T he u se of fu el o il can h av e sig n if ic a n t im p a c t on su lf u r dio xid e 

e m is s io n s depen d en t up on th e a v a il a b il it y of lo w su lf u r fu e l o il .
184

B a sed u pon th ese fa c to r s, we wou ld en co ura ge th e AQ MP to in cl ude

ad op tio n of co ntr ol m ea su res d ir ecte d at th e m ai nt en an ce of the su lfur di ox id e

st andard .

T he AQ MP in cl udes m ea su res fo r th e co ntr ol of hyd ro ca rb on em is sio n s

fr om st ati onary so u r c e s. Sta ti on ar y so u rc es a ls o ac co un t fo r 70% of the an th ro ­

pog en ic part ic u la te s and 80-9 0% of t h e su lf ur di ox id e e m is s io n s . G en er al

P o li c y #1, co n tr ol of st at io nar y s o u r c e s , sh ou ld be ex pa nd ed to in cl ude m ea su res

fo r th e co ntr ol of par ti cu la te and su lf ur dio xi de e m is s io n s --s p e c if ic a ll y , ac tion s

3 and 4 re quir in g B est A vail able C ontr ol T ec hno lo gy (BAC T) and N ew Sou rc es

R ev ie w (N SR ). Th e re quir em en t of BA CT fo r new and exis ti n g st ati onary

so u rc es is m ost im port an t. We su g g est a fu rt her def in itio n of "lo w es t a ch ie vable e m is sio n ra te" to av oi d in te rp reta ti on p rob le m s. Th e def in it io n sh ou ld

r e fle c t th e b est per fo rm an ce of ex is ti n g te ch nolo gy fo r th e ty pe of so u r c e . The

co nce pt of new so u rce re vie w is a n ’ex cell en t st rate gy fo r th e re duct io n of e m is ­

s io n s . An im po rtan t co m po ne nt of NS R is th e u se of an e m is sio n s off se t p oli cy.

The o ff se t p olicy b ec om es im por ta nt wh en a pro pos ed so u rce usi ng BAC T w il l

s t ill ca u se si gnif ic ant em is sio n s th at in te rfe r e wi th th e' at ta in m en t or m ain te n -— ~-

ance of st an d ard s. To im ple m en t th e em is sio n off se t req u ir em en ts , we fe el

very st ro n gly that a ne t re duct io n in em is sio n s m ust be th e p ri m e crit erio n .

The re duct io n m us t be su ff ic ie n tl y grea te r than new em is sio n s to re p rese n t su bst an ti al p ro g ress to w ar ds att ai nm en t of th e re le van t air qual ity st an dar d. We

ar e not ad vo ca ting a sp ec if ic ra ti o bu t su g g est fl ex ib il it y so th at gr ea te r p erce nta ge o ff sets are re quir ed fo r polluta nts ca using m ore se rio u s hea lth ef fe ct s

and on es fo r whi ch o ff set ca ndid ate s a re m ore read il y a v a il a b le .
185

The p ro p o se d m o b il e so u rc e c o n tr o ls - - m o r e s tr in g e n t v e h ic le e x h a u st 

e m is s io n c o n tr o ls and an in s p e c ti o n /m a in te n a n c e p ro g ra m —w il l y ie ld s ig n if ic a n t re d u c ti o n s in h y d ro c a rb o n e m is s io n s . E v en w ith th e im p le m e n ta ti o n of

.. th e p ro p o se d s ta ti o n a ry s o u rc e c o n tr o ls an d m o b il e s o u rc e c o n tro ls , th e s ta n ­

d a rd s w il l not b e m e t an d o u r a i r w il l no t b e sa fe to b . 'e a th e . T ra n s p o rta tio n

*’ c o n tr o ls an d la n d u s e m e a s u r e s a r e of e x tr e m e im p o rt a n c e in an o v e ra ll s t r a t - 

•' eg y to m e e t th e a i r q u a li ty s ta n d a rd s . A m a jo r so u rc e of th e d a n g e rs to publi c 

h e a lth in t h e a i r o v e r o u r u rb a n a n d su b u rb a n a r e a s is a r e s u lt of th e n e c e s s ity

f o r th e u s e of au to m o ti v e tra n s p o r ta tio n c a u s e d by a p a tte r n of la n d dev elo p m en t 

o v e r th e p a s t 30 y e a r s - - th e d ev elo p m en t of su b u rb a n a r e a s a lm o s t dev oid of 

p u b li c tr a n s p o r ta tio n .

T he re d u c ti o n of au to re la te d p o ll u ti o n , th ough v ita l, can n o t by its e lf 

so lv e th e h e a lt h p ro b le m s th e im b a la n c e o u r n a ti o n 's tr a n s p o rta tio n s y s te m 

c r e a te s . E m is s io n c o n tro l la w s can n o t p ro v id e a n s w e rs to su c h p ro b le m s a s

th e s e , fo r ex am p le :

1) fi ndin g su ffic ie n t fu el fo r an e v e r ex pan din g au to m o ti v e popula ti on

2) c u rb in g u rb a n sp ra w l

3) la n d d em an d fo r ro ad w ay s and p a rk in g fa c iliti e s

4) m a s s iv e -tra ffic c o n g e sti o n

D e c is io n s m ade re g a rd in g tr a n s p o rta tio n c o n tr o ls a r e a f i r s t ste p to w a rd s

r e d re s s in g th e im b a la n c e in th e c u r re n t tra n s p o r ta tio n p a tte rn th a t have g ra v e

w

c o n seq u en ces fo r o u r p o p u la ti o n .

W ith re fe re n c e to th e p ro p o se d tr a n s p o r ta tio n c o n tr o ls co n ta in ed in P o li c y 

* HI, A cti o n 11 , th e p ro v is io n fo r ad d it io n a l tr a n s it s e rv ic e sh ould re c e iv e a hig h
186

p rio rity . T o beg in to so lv e th e in te r r e la te d p ro b le m s of la n d u s e an d e n e rg y ,

& tr a n s p o rta tio n p o li cy m u st be e s ta b lis h e d and a c o m p re h e n siv e tr a n s p o rta tio n 

s y s te m in itia te d . A cti o n 11 in a d d it io n t o A cti o n 12 , th e p ro v is io n fo r in c re a s e d 

d ev elo p m en t of a lte rn a te m o d e s, sh o u ld be in sti tu te d a t ap p ro x im a te ly th e sa m e 

ti m e as A cti o n s 8, 9, 10 , and 13 , w hic h a c t a s d is in c e n ti v e s to th e u se of th e 

p riv a te au to to o ff set an y r e g re s s iv e eco n o m ic im p a c ts a s s o c ia te d w it h th e 

d is in c e n ti v e s . In d iv e rti n g au to u s e r s to t r a n s it, adeq u ate v e h ic u la r c a p a c it y , 

p ro v is io n s fo r tr a v e l t im e s c o m p a ra b le to th e au to m o b il e a t a c o s t to th e r id e r 

th a t is a ttr a c tiv e re la tiv e to th e c o s t of d riv in g m u s t be c o n s id e re d . E x is ti n g 

tr a n s it sy s te m s do not hav e th e v e h ic u la r c a p a c it y to ach ie v e la rg e re d u c ti o n s 

in au to u s e . A chie vin g a 10 - 20% re d u c ti o n in au to u se co uld r e q u ire ex pansio n 

of e x is ti n g bus fle e ts of a t le a s t 50%.

A fin a l co m m en t re g a rd in g in c re a s e d tr a n s it s e r v i c e s - - a su it a b le c o m ­

b in ati o n of m o d es m u s t be fo un d fo r. e ach s itu a ti o n . T he L un g A s so c ia ti o n re c o m ­

m en d s th e in c lu sio n of r a il t r a n s it fo r c o n s id e ra ti o n in A cti on 11 a s a c le a n an d 

e ffi c ie n t fo rm of t r a n s it. Of p rim e c o n c e rn to th e L u n g A s so c ia ti o n in th e a r e a 

of r a i l tr a n s it is th e co n ti n u ati o n of S o u th e rn P a c if ic ’s P e n in su la co m m u te s e rv ic e 

T he co m m ute s e rv ic e is an in te g ra l p a r t of th e tr a n s it s e rv ic e s on th e P e n in s u la . 

T h e re hav e b e e n re p e a te d a tt e m p ts by S P to aban don it s s e r v ic e . We str o n g ly 

re c o m m e n d th e AQM P a d d re s s th e need fo r co nti nuin g an d u p g ra d in g th e P e n in ­

su la co m m u te s e rv ic e .

T ra n s p o rta tio n cannot be c o n s id e re d in a v acu u m . T ra n s p o rta ti o n is in e x ­

tric a b ly ti e d to e n e rg y u s e — an d th e e n e rg y s h o rta g e . It is in ev it ab ly ti e d to 

e c o n o m ie s , not only by th e obvio us c o s ts of o p e ra ti n g a v e h ic le but a ls o by th e
187

l e s s obvio us c o s ts of a la c k of a d e q u a te tr a n s p o r t f a c ilitie s . T ra n s p o rta tio n

is a ls o t ie d c lo s e ly to la n d u s e .

U n ti l r e c e n tly , th e U n it ed S ta te s h ad sh ow n little c o n c e rn fo r la n d u s e . 

T o d ay w e r e a liz e th a t la n d u s e is s u e s li e a t th e h e a r t o f m an y of o u r m o s t c r i t ­

ic a l e n v ir o n m e n ta l an d s o c ia l c o n c e rn s . T h e re a r e a n u m b e r of re a s o n s why

*

w e a r e no w c o n fro n te d w it h th e n eed to s tr u c tu r e e ffe c ti v e and r e a lis tic la n d 

u s e p ro g ra m s : We h av e u n d e rg o n e an e n o rm o u s p o p u la ti o n g ro w th w it h a co n ­

c o m it a n t in c r e a s e in p h y s ic a l m o b il it y ; an d th is n a tio n 's s o c ia l an d eco n o m ic 

S tr u c tu re h a s b e e n ti e d d ir e c tly to p riv a te a c q u is it io n of la n d and to th e im p o r ­

ta n c e of la n d a s an eco n o m ic c o m m o d it y . C e rta in g o v e rn m e n ta l a c tiv itie s sin c e 

W o rl d W ar II h av e h ad s u b s ta n tia l im p a c t on th is c o u n try 's acc o m o d a ti o n to 

g ro w th , in clu d in g a c tiv itie s b a s e d on th e F e d e r a l H ousi ng A d m in is tra tio n 's 

c o n s tr u c ti o n p r o g ra m an d th e F e d e r a l A id H ig hw ay A ct of 19 56 , w hic h b eg an th e 

41 , 00 0 m il e n a ti o n a l s y s te m of h ig h w a y s.

L and u s e d e c is io n s w il l h av e w id e s p re a d e ffe c ts on th e q u a li ty of th e w ho le 

h u m an e n v ir o n m e n t— th e p ro te c tio n of w il d li fe and n a tu ra l c o v e r, th e p ro v is io n 

f o r r e c r e a tio n a l o p p o rtu n it ie s , th e p re v e n ti o n of a i r an d w a te r p o ll u ti o n , th e 

en h an ce m e n t of hu m an h e a lth and w e lfa re , an d th e f u rth e ra n c e of th e eco n o m ic

w e ll -b e in g of th e c o u n tr y .

T h e re c o m m e n d a ti o n s in th e AQM P fo r d e v e lo p m e n t and la n d u s e m a n a g e ­

m e n t w il l p la y an im p o rta n t ro le in th e o v e ra ll s tr a te g y fo r c le a n a i r . We

*

s tr o n g ly a g re e w it h th e c o n c e p t of c o m p a c t d e v e lo p m e n t w hic h e m p h a siz e d r e ­

d u ced au to d ep en d en c y . In a d d it io n we s u p p o rt th e in c lu sio n of in d ire c t s o u rc e 

* r e v ie w - -th a t i s , re v ie w of fa c iliti e s w hic h th e m s e lv e s do not d ir e c tly p o ll u te
bu t m ay a ttr a c t la rg e n u m b ers of m o b il e s o u r c e s . T he p re c o n s tr u c ti o n o r 

p re m o d if ic a ti o n re v ie w of in d ir e c t s o u r c e s , in cl udin g sh oppin g c e n te r s , in d u st r i a l off ic e c o m p le x e s, ro a d o r hig hw ay p r o je c ts , an d an y m e a s u re fo r th e 

m an a g e m e n t of p a rk in g su p p li es c an h av e a sig n if ic a n t im p a c t up on lo c a l a ir 

q u a li ty im p ro v e m e n t.

O u r fin a l co m m en ts p e rta in to lo c a l g e n e ra l p la n s . A lthough th e sta te 

m ay m an d ate c e r ta in e le m e n ts in lo c a l p la n s , a ir q u a li ty e le m e n ts a re not now 

re q u ire d . We u rg e in clu sio n in th e A Q M P of p o li cy re c o m m en d in g enabli ng 

le g is la ti o n fo r th e d ev elo pm ent of an a ir q u a li ty e le m e n t in lo c a l p la n s . -

S o cia l an d E con o m ic C o n sid e ra ti o n s

T he c o s ts of t h e tra d e -o ffs b etw een m e e ti n g th e fe d e ra l a ir q u a li ty s ta n ­

d a rd s an d h e a lt h in te rm s of h u m an su ffe ri n g can on ly be s u rm is e d ; th e c o s t in 

d o ll a rs can be d ocum ente d to so m e e x te n t. E s ti m a te s fo r th e to ta l n a ti o n a l 

c o s ts of sic k n e s s an d d eath fo r d is e a s e a s s o c ia te d w ith th e r e s p ir a to r y s y s te m , 

s p e c if ic a ll y r e s p ir a to r y c a n c e r, c h ro n ic and acu te b ro n c h it is , p n eum onia , 

e m p h y sem a, a s th m a , an d th e co m m on c o ld ra n g e fro m $ 4 .6 to $ 1 2 .6 b il li o n .

B a si n g th e ir d ire c t d is e a s e c o s ts on a c a te g o ry in clu d in g e x p e n d it u re s

n

fo r h o s p it a l an d n u rsin g hom e c a r e , and th e s e rv ic e s of p h y sic ia n s and o th e r 

h e a lt h p ro fe s s io n a ls , bu t no t in clu d in g m an y o th e r c o s ts a s m e d ic a l r e s e a r c h 

and m e d ic a l fa c il it ie s c o n s tr u c ti o n , tw o h e a lt h e c o n o m is ts . L av e an d S e sk in , 

e s ti m a te d th a t 25% of th e c o s t of a ll s ic k n e s s an d d eath du e to r e s p ir a to r y d is ­

e a s e co uld be sa v ed by a 50% a b a te m e n t in a ir poll u ti o n le v e ls in m a jo r u rb a n 

a r e a s . G iv en th e la te s t annual c o s t of r e s p ir a to r y d is e a s e of $16,4 54 b il li o n , 

th e am ount sa v ed in th is way w ou ld be $ 4 ,1 1 4 b il li o n . T h e se c o s t e s ti m a te s a r e
189

few e r and le s s d e fin it iv e th a n we ought to h a v e . U n q u esti o n ab ly , a ll h e a lt h 

c o s t e s tim a te s th a t we do h av e a r e e x tre m e ly c o n s e rv a ti v e . One of th e ir m a jo r 

w e a k n e sse s is th a t th e y o m it a g r e a t m an y c o s ts th a t sh ould be c o n s id e re d in 

any re a s o n a b le c o s t—b e n e fi t a n a ly s is . *

.I t is o ft en a s s e r te d th a t e n v ir o n m e n ta l p ro g ra m s cau se u n e m p lo y m e n t. A 

r e p o r t fro m th e P r e s id e n t’s C o u n c il on E n v ir o n m e n ta l Q u ali ty , " E n v ir o n m e n ta l 

P ro g r a m s an d E m p lo y m e n t, " (A p ril , 1975) sh ow s th a t co m b in ed sp endin g o v er 

th e te n - y e a r p e rio d 19 74 -8 3 is e x p e c te d to ex c e e d $2 00 b il li o n . CEQ c h a ir m a n 

R u s s e l P e te r s o n p o in te d out th a t th e B u re a u of L a b o r S ta tis tic s e s ti m a te d th a t 

e a c h $1 b il li o n sp e n t fo r p o ll u ti o n c o n tr o l tr a n s la te s in to ab out 67, 000 jo b s .

T h is m ean s th a t p o ll u ti o n c o n tr o l e x p e n d it u re s re s u lte d in m o re th a n 1 m il li o n 

jo b s in 1975 an d th is n u m b er w il l in c r e a s e s e v e ra l fo ld o v er th e next d e c a d e .

A n ad d it io n a l em p lo y m en t b e n e fit ca n be s e e n in t h e tr a n s p o rta tio n s e c to r. 

E m p lo y m en t o p p o rtu n it ie s c an be in c r e a s e d b y d iv e rti n g fu nds fro m th e H ig hw ay 

T r u s t Fund fo r hig hw ay s to r a ilr o a d and tr a n s i t a lte r n a tiv e s . A cco rd in g to c a lcu la ti o n s by R o g e r B ezd ik and B ru c e H an non of th e U n iv e rs it y of I lli n o is , a 

sh if t of c o n s tr u c ti o n m o n ie s fro m hig hw ays to r a ilro a d s w ou ld r e s u lt in a 3. 2% 

in c r e a s e in e m p lo y m e n t. A n o th er b e n e fit a s s o c ia te d w ith m a s s tr a n s it c o n s tru c ­

ti o n is no w e m e rg in g : an o p p o rt u n it y fo r b la c k and o th e r m in o rit y c o n tra c to rs 

to b re a k in to a tr a d iti o n a lly w hit e d o m in ate d c o n s tr u c ti o n fie ld . F o r e x a m p le , 

th e W ashin gto n, D .C ., m e tro h a s aw a rd e d so m e $6 0 m il li o n to m in o rit y b u ild e rs . 

A t th e sa m e r a te , m in o rit y c o n c e rn s w ou ld c a p tu re ab out $2 60 m il li o n of th e 

to ta l e x p e n d it u re . T h a t alo n e is m o re th a n o n e -s ix th of th e am o u n t e s ti m a te d 

to hav e b een e a rn e d by a ll m in o rit y c o n c e rn s in 197 6 in a ll c o n s tr u c ti o n p ro je c ts 

a c r o s s th e n a ti o n , pu b li c and p r iv a te .

35-395 0 - 79 - 13
190

In C on cl usion :

R ath er th an dw el ling on un foun de d p red ic ti on s of ec onom ic and so c ia l

hard sh ip s m ade by m an y, we a sk y ou to co n si d er th e quie t d is a ste r of air p o llu ti on th at is w ith u s no w. We a sk yo u to c o n sid e r th e p o si ti v e b en ef it s of

pol lu tion co n tr ol in te rm s of im pro ved h ealt h , sa fe ty , and gen eral qu ality of

life . We u rg e th e ad op tio n of a st ro ng A ir Q ual ity M ai nt en an ce P la n that w il l

m eet a ll F ed era l A ir Q ua lit y st an dar ds w it hin t he se t ti m e fr am e of th e C le an

A ir A ct A m en dm en ts of 19 77 .
191

*

Paul Cah ill 

President

Regional 

Citizens 

Forum

21 Suns

Kensington, California 

June 23, 1978

B illie Bowles

1st Vice President

Willia m Stetson

2nd Vin e President

Sandy Smith 

Secretary

Steve Carbonaro 

Treasurer

Honorable Leo J . Ryan 

Suite 219

1720 South Amphlett Blvd. 

San Mateo, California

Gary Bos»ey 

Dale Burrow 

R. Weldon Crabb 

Ernest Cu rtis 

Theresa Dietrich 

Marty Farman 

Terry Faulkner 

Willia m Fullam 

Vi Gotelli 

David Grappo 

John Harris 

Ray Heaps 

Joann Jameson 

Anne Kaufman 

Dorothy Keener 

Nicholas Kudrovzeff 

Philip Larrabee 

Helen Martin 

Ralph Morrell 

Willia m Pisenti 

Ted Reed 

Fred Stitt 

Jud ith Sutherland 

Bob Thierry 

Cha rles Toogood 

Bobbie Vargas 

William White

Representative

Council

Dear Co ngressman Ryan,

R e : ABAG Environmental Management 

Plan. Congressional Hearings, 

by House Subcommittee on 

Envi ronment, Ene rgy , and 

Natural Resources.

Request to Participate. The Regional Citizens 

Forum is a volunteer action and research group made up 

of citizens of all the nine San Francisco Bay Area 

Counties. Under federal mandate, ABAG originally 

established and sponsored this citizens' advisory 

group in 1973. The Regional Citizens Forum has 

continued on an independent basis since 1974. We 

have worked, analyzed, and commented on numerous 

Regional Plans ranging from Housing, or Economic 

Growth, to the Environmental Management Plan at issue 

in your Subcommittee Hearings.

The Regional Citizens Forum were not informed of 

your hearings until yesterday, June 22, 1978. Therefore, 

we have no position on the agenda.

We would like to contribute our comments for the 

record that your committee will publish following the 

hea rin gs.

We plan to comment on: 1) the insufficient provision 

for opeh public participation in the EMP planning process, 

and 2) the impact of the EMP upon local government and 

the economy and well-being of citizens of the San Francisco 

Bay Area.
192

Regionai/Citi^ens Forum 

June

Request for Permission to File Wri tten Presentation for 

the Subcommittee Record. The Regional Citizens Forum requests 

that you allow us 10 days to prepare and submit a written 

presentation, to be included in the formal records and publications 

of this subcommittee hearing.

Appropriate to our intended presentation, I attach three 

documents. Relative to practices excluding broad citizen participation 

are 1) transcripts of the ABAG Legislation and Governmental Operations 

Committee meeting of February 26, 1978, w herein the controlled 

selection of citizen participation is revealed, and,

2) Newspaper article from the San Rafael Independent Journal of 

Marc h 30, 1978, commenting of the exclusionary decisions of the 

February 26, 1978 meeting.

Relative to impacts of the EMP on the San Francisco Bay Area

3) Letter dated June 9,1978 from the Regional Citizens Forum to 

the Delegates of ABAG Cities and Counties.

PAUL C. CAHILL 

Pre sid ent ,

Regional Citizens Forum

Attachments: 3 

cc: Mrs. Vi Gotelli
193

T r a n s c rip t of P ro ce edin gs 

Re: Agenda It em No. 2*

Mayor I le n e W ei nr eb , p re s id in g

S u p e rv is o r Rod D ir id o n

Mr. C h arl es F o r e s te r, Sa n F ra n c is co

Councilwo man Mary Hen de rson

Co un cilm an A rt h u r Lep or e

Co un cilm an W illiam L uciu s

Vice Mayor Jo hn Misk im en

LEGISLATION AND GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE

Feb ru ar y 26, 1976 B e rk ele y , C a lif o rn ia

O ffic e s o f th e A sso c ia ti o n of Bay Ar ea Go ve rnme nts

P a r ti c ip a tin g P a r tie s

Mr. P aul C a h i ll, R eg io nal C it iz e n s 

Forum Ch airma n

Mrs. V io le t G o te lli, RCF C ounci l 

San Mateo

Mr. P h i l l i p L a rr a b e e , RCF C ounci l 

Alameda

Dr. Weldon C ra bb , RCF C oun ci l

San F ra n c is co

Mr. R ober t T h ie rry , RCF C ou nc il 

Sol an o

Mr. Revan T r a n te r , E xecuti ve D ir e c to r,

ABAG

Miss L iz e tte W ei s, P u b li c A ffa ir s D ir e c to r, 

ABAG

MRS, WEINREB ( p r e s id in g ) : "Th e se co nd it em i s expansi on of th e E nvir onm enta l 

Managem ent Ta sk F o rc e. L iz e tt e ? "

MISS WEIS (ABAG s t a f f ) : "The E nvir onm enta l Managem ent Ta sk Fo rc e has sp en t an in o rd in a te am ount o f ti m e d is c u s s in g how i t s h a l l pro ceed and o p e ra te .

I th in k I le n e . . . "

MRS, WEINREB: " I t i s in e v ita b le when you s t a r t a co m m itte e t o sp en d an 

in o rd in a te amount o f ti m e on house keepin g."

MISS WEIS: "OK. One o f th e q u e sti o n s th a t keeps co ming up i s th e co m posi ti on o f th e ta s k fo rc e . As you pro bably know i t has f o r ty - f o u r me mb ers, w it h a p o s s ib le f o r ty - s ix me mb ers . I t i s th e s t a f f 's re co m m en da tio n th a t we l e t th e ta s k fo rc e pro ceed a s i t i s , because i t ' s su ch a la r g e gr ou p a la rg e gro up w it h th e c u rre n t make up and e x p ect th a t th e r e w ill be a g re a t d e a l o f c i t i z e n in volv em ent and s p e c ia l i n t e r e s t in volv em ent d u ri n g th e co u rs e 

o f c i t i z e n p a r t ic ip a tio n a c t i v i t i e s . "

MRS. WEINREB: *t>K. Th e co m m itte e o f co u rs e has d is c u s s e d th e num ber and wha t, wh at o rg a n iz a ti o n s co u ld be re p re s e n te d , an d y e t k eep as sm all as p o s s ib le . So , u n le ss th e r e is some o th e r comment from a member of th e co m m itt ee . . . "

MR. CAHILL (RCF C hai rm an ): Y es , I wo uld l i k e t o com me nt,' I am n o t a member 

o f th e com m itte e, b u t wo uld l i k e t o . "

♦P re par ed Ma rch 3 , 19 76, by th e RCF fro m ta p e o f Co mm ittee M ee tin g P ro ceed in g s.

/J-TTrtCWrMF/l'T *1 *
MRS. WEINREB: Yes. Wait j u s t a m in ute , l e t me j u s t . . . I w ill all ow you 

of c o u rs e to com men t. I s th e r e an y th in g th a t members of th e co m m itt ee 

w is h to sa y th a t we h a v e n 't s a id b efo re ? A ll r ig h t th e n , l e t 's . . . y es? 

Chuck ?"

MR. FORESTER: " I would lik e t o sa y so m et hin g. I' m c u rre n tl y se rv in g on 

" th a t co m m itte e re p re s e n ti n g Mayor Mosc one. I t ' s my fe e li n g th a t th e . . . 

one of th e mo st im p o rt an t jo b s of th e ta s k fo rc e i s to put to g e th e r th e 

govern m enta l and f in a n c ia l ar ra ngem ents n e ce ssa ry to make th a t Envi ro nm en ta l 

Mana gement Pla n work, and I th in k i t ' s mo st im p o rt an t th a t th e . . . th a t 

th e r o le o f th e e le c te d o f f i c i a l s in th a t n o t be any f u r th e r d ilu te d 

s in c e t h e y 'r e goin g to be p rim a ril y re s p o n s ib le not on ly fo r d e sig n in g 

b u t f o r im pl em en ting th e p la n on ce i t ' s e s ta b lis h e d . So , I would s tr o n g ly 

urg e t h a t th e p re s e n t mem bersh ip be m a in ta in e d ."

MRS. WEINREB: "M ary?"

MRS, HENDERSON: " I 'd lik e t o add on e fo llow -u p'c om m en t . . . The r e p o r ts ba ck 

t h a t we ha d a t BCDC fro m th e n o n -e le c te d o f f i c i a l members ha ve be en ve ry 

c r i t i c a l of s iz e of th e co m m itte e . . . "

MRS. WEINREB: "T ha t i t ' s to o la rg e ? "

MRS. HENDERSON: " . . . th a t i t ' s to o la r g e a lr e a d y , and th e r e was a su g g esti o n

t h a t i t be ev en la r g e r , and th a t was s tr o n g ly re a c te d to and r e s is te d by 

th o s e in v o lv ed as bein g un w or ka bl e an d un w ie ld y and I only make th e comment 

now because i t came from th e n o n -e le c te d o f f i c i a l 's p e rs p e c ti v e ."

MRS. WEINREB: "Any o th e r comm ents fro m members? A lr ig h t, th e re a re some 

p eople h e re , I th in k , who wa nt to sp ea k on t h i s and I w ill allow the m to 

do so . Would you p le a se id e n tif y y o u rs e lf and what o rg a n iz a ti o n you a re 

w it h ."

MR. CAHILL: "My name i s P aul C a h ill. I am Ch airma n of th e R eg io nal C it iz e n s 

Forum,.

" I c o n s id e r th e com posi tion of t h i s co m m itte e /EMTP7 t o be a very s e rio u s 

m a tt e r, and I would ho pe we would hav e an ad eq uate d is c u s s io n of i t to d ay , 

s e e in g as i t in v o lv es f e d e r a l fu nds t h a t ABAG is sp en din g h e re , and th e re 

a re s ta t u to r y re q u ir em en ts th a t mus t be obse rv ed .

" I ha ve w r itte n a l e t t e r to Mr. G ro te , and wo ndere d i f th a t ha d be en 

d is tr ib u te d to th e co m m itt ee me mbers?"

MISS WEIS: "No i t h a s n 't , b u t i t i s m en tioned th a t you re q u e ste d to be on 

th e com m it te e."

MR. CAHILL: OK I th in k i t ' s im p o rta n t — I th in k i t ' s in s u f f ic ie n t th a t 

i t h a s n 't be en d is tr ib u te d , but . . . "

MRS, WEINREB: "W el l, why d o n 't you su mmarize i t? "
MR. CAHILI.: " A lr ig h t. I t ' s f a i r l y s h o r t, so I ' l l re ad i t :

'D ear Mr. G ro te :

'T he R egio nal C it iz e n s Forum re c o g n iz e s , alo ng w it h 

ABAG, t h a t dra w in g up a re g io n a l pla n on w ast e d is p o s a l, 

a i r an d w ate r q u a lity c o n tr o l has immense r a m if ic a ti o n s .

As c it i z e n s fo cuse d on th e fu tu r e o f our San F ra n c is co Bay 

R eg io n, we should lik e to f u lly p a r tic ip a te in th e fo rm u la ti o n 

o f t h i s p la n : r a th e r th a n be on th e s id e l in e s , i t i s re q u e ste d 

th a t R egio nal C it iz e n s Forum ha ve a re p r e s e n ta tiv e w or ki ng 

on th e ta s k fo rc e .

'Tho ug h we we re not appro ac hed by ABAG f o r th is ta s k , 

we b e li e v e i t w ort h th e ti m e and e f f o r t and b e n e f ic ia l to 

th e p r o je c t as w e ll . We do n o t b e li e v e th e ro u te of comment 

a t p u b li c h e a rin g s p ro v id e s s u f f i c i e n t c i t i z e n in v o lv em en t, no r 

do es i t allow f o r th e e f f e c tiv e in p u t th a t wor ki ng on th e ta s k 

fo rc e a f f o r d s .

'O ur work and concern in R egio nal P la nnin g ha s be en 

c o n s ta n t s in c e ABAG i n i t i a l l y sponso re d th e fo undin g o f our 

r e g io n a l c itiz e n s gr ou p in 19 72 . We ha ve re vi ew ed and comm ented 

on v a ri o u s su ch r e g io n a l p la n s and e le m e n ts , su ch as th e 

R egio nal Grow th Pla ns and H ou si ng . O ft en our o u tl o o k was n o t 

s im ila r to th e g re a t m a jo rit y o f th e c i t i z e n gr ou p r e p re s e n ta ti v e s 

yo u ha ve p la ced on your ta s k fo rc e so f a r , b u t i t i s an a u th e n ti c 

view t h a t sh ould n ot be excl uded in th e dr aw in g up of th e 

r e g io n a l p o l i c i e s . '

" A lrig h t. Now, w it h re g a rd to t h i s I ha ve su rv ey ed th e la w , and I . . . 

as a ta lk in g p o in t h e re to d a y , I ha ve p re p are d a memorandum of a u th o r itie s 

which I w ill d i s t r i b u t e a t t h i s p o in t."

MRS. WEINREB: " A lr ig h t. While y o u 'r e d o in g th a t l e t me j u s t sa y th a t I 

wo uld be very s u rp ris e d to h e a r t h a t your vie w poin t i s o r is n o t a 

m a jo rit y v ie w p o in t on th e ta s k fo rc e beca use a t t h i s p o in t, s i t t i n g 

t h e r e , I wo uld n o t be a b le to t e l l you wh at th e m a jo rit y vie w poin t . . . "

MRS. HENDERSON: " I th in k i t i s a v ery d iv e rs e gr ou p and I know th a t from 

p o in t of vi ew I c a n 't ev en do t h a t y e t.

MRS. WEINREB:

" I wo uld l i k e L iz e tte to summarize th e m o d if ic a ti o n th a t was su ggest ed 

and ad opte d a t th e l a s t m eeting as to how c i t i z e n in p u t of th o se c itiz e n s 

t h a t a re not on th e ta s k fo rc e wo uld come in to p ro c e ss ."

MR. CAHILL: "A lr ig h t- , th e n , I w ill c o n ti n u e my re m ark s."
Min s WEIS: "Th e p ro c e ss t h a t was ad opte d was ad op te d by en v ir o n m e n ta l 

Mana gement Ta sk Fo rc e in t h e i r l a s t m eeti ng was th e 'l in k a g e ' be tw ee n 

c i t i z e n a c t i v i t i e s a t th e co unty l e v e l , wh ich wou ld be con du ct ed by 

th e le a d ag en cy in ea ch c ounty — i t wo nt n e c e s s a r il y be th e co u n ty — 

th e le a d ag en cy in ea ch c ounty and th e Envi ro nm en ta l Manag ement Ta sk 

F o rc e . And th e Ta sk For ce ag re ed t o s e t up 'l i a i s o n te a m s ', made up 

o f th r e e r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s of th e ta s k fo r c e wh ich w i l l work in ea ch 

c o u n ty . So t h a t means t h a t th e r e w i l l be n in e tea ms o f th r e e peo ple 

eac h . . . . be re s p o n s ib le t o make t h a t li n k a g e . W ha t's only p a r t o f 

th e c i t i z e n in vo lv em en t t h a t t o make th e lin k w it h w h a t' s ha pp en in g 

a t t h e l o c a l le v e l w it h w h a t' s happen in g a t th e re g io n a l l e v e l. T he re 

w i l l , o f c o u rs e , be a l o t o f o th e r a c t i v i t i e s j u s t as ABAG's c i t i z e n 

in volv em ent prog ram in v o lv e s c i t i z e n a l l i a n c e an d a who le ra nge o f 

o th e r a c t i v i t i e s . "

MRS. WEINREB; "B ut th e purp o se o f t h a t was t o for m a v e ry c lo s e l i a i s o n 

be tw ee n th e c i t i z e n s in th e in d iv id u a l c o u n ti e s and th e Ta sk F o rc e ."

MR. CAHILL: " I th in k t h i s i s in co nf or m an ce w it h y our w or ki ng p la n , 

how ev er , I wo uld in d ic a te t h a t we a re a g e n e r a l g ro u p , and . . .

"B efo re I go f u r th e r w it h my re m ar ks I wo uld j u s t l i k e t o in tr o d u c e 

th e p e o p le who a re h e re - - f i r s t , Vi G o te lli fro m San Ma teo C ou nt y, 

sh e i s a ls o ch ai rm an o f an e n v ir o n m e n ta l gr ou p f o r women; Mr. Bob T h ie rr y 

o f S ola no Cou nt y, a ls o th e e x e c u ti v e d i r e c t o r o f th e T ax p ay ers ' 

A s s o c ia ti o n o f So la no Co un ty; P h il L a rr a b e e , A tt orn ey fro m Oak la nd ;

D r. Wel don Cr ab b o f San F ra n c is c o , a ls o on th e C a lif o r n ia C o o rd in a ti n g 

C o u n cil .

"And X wo uld p o in t o u t t h a t we f e e l v e ry s tr o n g ly t h a t th e r e ha s be en 

an in a d e q u a te s e le c tio n m et ho d_ us ed , t h a t ha s r e s u lt e d in an in a d e q u a te 

r e p r e s e n ta tio n on t h i s bo ar d /EMTF 7. And we a re g o in g t o make t h i s 

p o in t h e re and i f we do n o t g e t r e d r e s s we a re goin g t o ta k e i t f u r t h e r .

" In s e l e c t i n g th e p re s e n t co m m itt ee — i t was do ne to o f a s t , we wer e n o t 

s o l i c i t e d ; c e r t a i n gro ups a p p a r e n tl y wer e s o l i c i t e d by s t a f f . We h a v e n 't 

y e t bee n a p p ri s e d o f th e s e l e c t i o n / s o l i c i t a t i o n m et ho d, b u t t h a t would 

be d is c o v e re d . . . "

MRS. WEINREB: "L et me i n t e r r u p t th e r e . The . . . t h i s co m m itt ee d e te rm in e d 

whi ch gro up s would be as ke d t o se nd r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s , so t h a t i f you do 

ha ve an y co m p la in t i t was t h i s co m m it te e ."

MR. CAHILL: " A lr ig h t. "

MRS. WEINREB: "The s t a f f made some re co m m en da tio ns some of whi ch we 

a c c e p te d , o th e rs o f wh ich we d id n o t a c c e p t.

MR. LUCIUS: "Madame C ha irm an , I ' d l i k e to make a p o in t th ro u g h th e c h a i r 

t o th e sp e a k e r t h a t I d o n 't r e a c t t o t h r e a t s , so j u s t go a h e a d ."

MRS. WEINREB: "I would a s s o c ia te m yse lf w it h y our re m a rk s. "
197

MK. CAII11.I.: " H il .1 , I .mi nol p u llin g o u l I l ii 'c .tlr . - - I know .1 le w y e a rs 

ag o I was as ked i f I was th re a i c u in g a .la w s u it . I d o n 't th in k it s 

p ro p e r I <> proceed I >y a t l i r e . i t . Bui. k d o b e lie v e I I1.1I o b s e rv a n c e o l 

th e la w i s n e c e s s a ry , and i f we c a l l th e ABAC, c o m m it te e o r th e ABAC 

g ro u p s t o re s p e c t th e s e la w s , th a t 1 d o n 't i t s h o u ld be c o n s id e re d 

a t h r e a t , b u t i t ' s o u r r e s p o n s ib ilit y as c it iz e n s t o . . . "

MR. DIRIDON: "Paul . . . "

MR. CAHII.L: " . . . bring that up. 1 wou ld a ls o say . . . "

MR. DIRIDON: "Paul . . . "

MR. CAHILL: " . . . le t me ju st fi nis h th is presen tatio n, and then we 

can —

"The Plan was issued — when issu ed most of the groups’, or many of 

the groups ' names were alread y in place.

"Now, I think that the committee, i f you look down the l i s t of who 

you se le ct ed , it is an inadequate rep resentati on from our point of 

view . I t has sp ec ia l fi nan ci al in te re st s. I t has env iron mentalists 

and groups which are on record as in fav or the land use planning 

approach to the pu blic good. And also se lected ra cia l groups.

"Now we want to know where the re st of the community is? People li k e 

us, people who are working groups, taxpayers grou ps, the majority 

groups. And we thi nk tha t th is exclu sio n of the Regional Ci tiz en s 

Forum which has been probably one of the only groups th at is focused 

on re gion al planning in the Bay Area, ex cl usive ly — th at' s in our 

ch arter — and we have come to ABAG meetings month aft er month, and 

issued re po tts we have drawn up on your plans — to exclude us — is 

making your committee un rep res entat ive .

"And as I go through these . . . /r ef er ri ng to Memorandum of Autho riti es/ 

. . . you are des ign ated 't o encourage' people. This is the con gressiona l 

de clar at io n in the Act.

"The Code of Fed eral Regulations that we c it e he re, is that you are to 

have broad represen tatio n 't o the fu ll e s t ext ent p ra ct ic able ,' and i t 

is n 't ju st a matter of your conve nience.

"The 'i n te n t', as stat ed here in the Code of Federal Regulatio ns,

'i s to fo st er a s p ir it of openness and a sense of mutual tr u st' and 

I think when you proceed and not even to s o li c it whether people would 

want to par tici pat e or not , and you se le ct a committee biased to 

ce rt ai n in te re st s, then you cannot expect that you are ope rating in 

th at s p ir it or th at you have our mutual tr u st. "

MRS. HENDERSON: "Madam Chairman, I would li k e to interrup t fo r ju st a 

moment. I think i t qu ite un fa ir to individu als on the committee to 

conclude that they are bias ed ."

MR. CAHILL: "No, I did n't say they were bias ed ."
198

MRS. HENDERSON: "B ut you j u s t s a id t h a t ."

MR. CAHILL: "I d i d n 't sa y th e y were b ia se d in a p e rs o n al ma nn er. I 

s a id th a t by s e le c tin g th e gro up s yo u ha ve s e le c te d , and t h e i r known 

re c o rd s and t h e i r p o s itio n s , you hav e pi ck ed th o se gr ou ps wh ich ha ve 

a la n d use pla nnin g b ia s , and it 's n o t th a t th ey a rc b ia se d , b ut i t ' s 

j u s t th e me thod th ey alway s come up w it h fo r so lv in g th e se pro ble m s. "

MRS. WEINREB: "In yo ur o p in io n , Mr. C a h ill."

MR. CAHILL: "T hat is c o r r e c t . I th in k th e g u id e li n e s wh ich you ha ve

re c e iv e d fro m EPA s t a t e t h a t w hate ver i n s titu tio n a liz e d s tr u c tu r e you *

s e t up i t 's h o u ld n o t be do m in at ed by any on e i n t e r e s t gro up' o f th e

p u b lic ..

"Now, th e law do es p ro vid e fo r c ity and co unty re p re s e n ta ti o n

an d t h a t 's f in e and you ha ve do ne t h a t . In th e a re a o f . . . I t a ls o

th o u g h , re q u ir e s th e p u b li c p a r tic ip a tio n and th a t i s c itiz e n gro u p s, *

and yo u ha ve t o be c a r e f u l when you do s e le c t th e s e th a t you ap pr oa ch 

i t in an e q u it a b le way , and t h a t 's a l l th a t Bn p o in ti n g out to yo u.

"Now, ev en your own p la n s h e re , as L iz e tte ha s p o in te d o u t, you ha ve 

a su b-g ro up wor ki ng . But t h i s , to u s , is a fa v o r ite t r i c k th a t w e've 

ru n in to w it h ABAG. You c e n t r a liz e th e p la n n in g a t th e to p and you 

only put your peo pl e a t th e to p - - and th e n fo r th e c i t i z e n s , you 

d e - c e n tr a liz e lo c a l in p u t. Now, I d o n 't th in k we sh ould be put down 

in th e lin k in g of lo c a l c itiz e n s gro ups when we a re a re g io n a l 

o rg a n iz a ti o n , and a re fo cuse d on re g io n a l p la n n in g .

"T he re i s j u s t no q u e sti o n th a t t h i s E nv ir onm en ta l Ta sk Fo rce ha s 

bro ad en ed - - th e charg e num ber fo u r was br oa de ne d a t th e su g g e sti o n 

of th e Bay Ar ea C ounci l to in c lu d e th e , i t s fo ld in g in w ith a l l th e 

re g io n a l p la n s . I t j u s t do es not . . . i s n o t s e n s ib le to r e s t r i c t 

us o f f o f th a t co m m itt ee — you d o n 't ha ve any bod y re p re s e n ti n g ou r 

p o in t o f view on th a t co m m itte e.

"Now ev en your own b ro ch u re , t h i s b lu e on e / r e f e r r i n g to 'P ro s p e c ts —

E nvir onm enta l Management P ro g ra m s t a t es th a t your p la n , yo ur 

'E nvir onm enta l Management Task F o rc e ' i s goin g to be 'b ro a d ly 

r e p r e s e n ta tiv e of th e v a ri o u s re g io n a l . . . c itiz e n s gr ou ps co nc er ned 

w it h envir onm enta l q u a lity and de ve lo pm en t is s u e s in th e Bay A re a .'

"We a re s p e c if i c a lly on e o f th o s e gro up s and we a re j u s t n o t re p re s e n te d .

"Now, a p p aren tl y . . . I'm fe e lin g a l o t of h o s t i l i t y fro m th e members, 

maybe i t ' s th e way I' m d e liv e r in g t h i s . But . . . "

MR. LUCIUS: "You may, b u t I d o n 't ha ve any h o s i t l i t y . "

MR. CAHILL: " I ha ve to put t h i s a c ro ss in a s e rio u s v e in , you know. I 

d i d n 't know i f I 'd be tr e a te d w e ll , and th e y 'd sa y 'F in e . J o in our 

com m itte e. W e'r e gla d to ha ve yo u r i n t e r e s t , ' o r 'No — no s o a p .'

•

"B ut i f you vo te to day to e x c lu d e , I 'd lik e you to make some fin d in g s , 

because w e 'r e go in g to ta k e i t up to your e x ec u ti v e bo ar d and we'd lik e 

i t known fo r what re a so n s you use d to excl ude us fro m t h is th in g . And 

I th in k th a t . . . "
MR. RICTU S: "Madam C h .d ri n.i n, I . . . " i

MR. CMITIJ.: " . . . a ln c c .I t in v o lv e s ao much money — $4.5 m ill io n 

d o l l a r s — w hich is tw ic e th e annual bud ge t o f ABAG, th is is not 

ju s t a m in or m a tt e r to be tr e a te d In a c u rs o ry fa s h io n by th is 

co m m ittee o r by ABAG.

MRS. WEINREB: "Tha nk you, Mr. C a h ill. Yes . . . "

MR. DIRIDON: "We de bate d th is o ver tw o d if f e r e n t m eetings, an in te rv e n in g 

period o f s e v e ra l weeks anyw ay, a la pse between th e debate p eri o d .

Lea din g up t o th e debate s e v e ra l months passed d u rin g which tim e we 

re a li z e d th a t a 208 p la n n in g gro up was re q u ir e d . This grou p is 

p att e rn ed a ft e r th e a ir a d v is o ry gro up. P r a c tic a lly id e n tic a l. And 

th e re we re some a d d it io n s made in o rd e r to str e n g th e n i t . "

FEMALE VOICE: " In o rd e r to g et re p re s e n ta ti v e s from w a te r. Because 

th e y were . . . Because th a t need ed to be o n ."

MR. DIRIDON: "T h a t's r ig h t . . . br oa d re p re s e n ta ti o n . In a d d it io n , 

tw e n ty -fiv e o ut o f th e t o t a l grou p o f . . . wh at is it ? T h ir ty - s ix ? "

FEMALE VOICE: " F o r ty - fo u r ."

MR. DIRIDON: "W ha te ve r th e numb er, th e m a jo rit y are e le c te d o f f ic ia ls .

That by d e f in it io n , re p re s e n t th e c itiz e n s , and th e y re pre se n t them 

because th e y were e le c te d . P aul, i f y o u 'd lik e to sta nd fo r e le c tio n , 

you have th a t p r iv ile g e .

MR. CAHILL: "Tha nk you. Ye s, Mr. D ir id o n . . . "

MR. DIRIDON: "W a it ju s t a m in ute , I b e li e v e I had th e flo o r . And when 

you wa nt th e f lo o r , ask to be re cog n iz ed . The gro up, I th in k , has 

d e li b e ra te d very c a r e f u ll y to make sure th is o rg a n iz a ti o n is th e best 

one p o s s ib le g iv en th e c o n s tra in t o f th e numbers o f people th a t can 

wo rk w it h in a co m m itt ee s tr u c tu re . I t was on th e sc hed ule th a t was . . . 

th a t i t fo llo w e d to me et th e g u id e li n e s e s ta b lis h e d by th e fe d e ra l 

gov er nm en t, and as f a r as I am co nc ern ed, i t is done."

MR. CAHILL: " I wou ld ju s t resp on d to tw o th in g s . F ir s t o f a l l , when 

th is was an a ir a d v is o ry gro up, i t was v e ry , uh . . . le s s — i t was 

one o f yo u r ta s k fo rc e s , b ut to th e e x te n t i t has been expanded i t has 

become in t e g r a l w it h re g io n a l p la n n in g . I t im pacts in a l l ways.

"Ana even th e sta te m ent you had d is tr ib u te d here / r e f e r r in g to 'P ro s p e c ts /7 

th e f i r s t th in g i t says, 'w hat . . . ' - - E nvironm enta l Management 'P ro s p e c ts ' 

'w ha t is th e most c r i t i c a l envir o n m en ta l pro ble m ?' Th e'one is 'D e cis io n s 

on th e re g io n 's gro w th — how many people w i l l liv e h ere , where th ey 

w i l l l iv e , how th e y w i l l tr a v e l . . . ' I t ' s th e re g io n a l p la n - - so met hing 

we have been ve ry much in v o lv e d w it h and , and want to co ntin u e to have 

e ffe c tiv e c it iz e n in volv em ent w it h .. . '
200

"Now, Rod has men tio ne d th a t th e re are lo c a l e le cte d o f f ic ia ls on 

t h is , and th a t by d e f in it io n th e y are sent th e re by lo c a l people .

And th a t's tr u e . However, th e law says th e re w i l l be e le cte d 

o f f ic ia ls - - b ut th e law a ls o says th e re w i l l be p u b li c p a r tic ip a tio n .

And th e re is a d is t in c tio n between th e tw o made in th e la w , and I 

th in k you must obs erv e th a t d is t in c t io n a ls o .

"You know th is ta s k fo rc e i s n 't even . . . i t is ju s t an a d vis o ry ta sk 

fo rc e . I t th en tu rn s i t s m a te ria l ove r to th e R egio nal P la nnin g 

Com mitte e whe re c itiz e n s ar e n o t . . . on . . . and th en th a t tu rn s i t ove r 

to th e e xecu tive board . Now how fa r are you goin g to re du ce us from 

g e ttin g in vo lv e d in th e p la n n in g proc es s? Th er e is no re ason why we 

ca nn ot be on th is re g io n a l ta s k fo r c e ."

MRS. WEINREB: "Thank yo u. Mary?"

MRS■ HENDERSON: "Madam Cha irm an , I wo uld th in k we could go so fa r as to 

accommodate eve ry p re s p e c ti v e and have ev eryb od y in th e re g io n on th e 

ta s k fo rc e i f th a t were th e u lt im a te en d, b ut I th in k i t is im po rt a n t 

to re cogniz e th a t th e law doe s say th a t a m a jo rit y o f th e re p re s e n ta ti v e s 

s h a ll be e le cte d o f f ic ia ls and a t th is p o in t o n ly fo r ty - e ig h t perc ent 

are e le cte d o f f i c i a l s . I fu r th e r th in k i t is not an e x c lu s io n from 

c itiz e n in volv em ent to n o t be a member. T h is is an age ncy o f lo c a l 

go ve rn m en t. I t ' s m ee tin gs are announced. I t ' s m ee tin gs are open.

And i t is c e r ta in ly i t ' s th e a b i l it y o f any in d iv id u a l to p a r tic ip a te . . . 

is alway s a v a il a b le . And I th in k th e re is th e suggestion th a t th e person 

is exc luded fro m p a r tic ip a tio n by th e st ate m ent th a t you c a n 't 

p a r tic ip a te unle ss you are a member, and th a t is n ot th e case . I do 

n o t fe e l i t p o s s ib le to accommodate eve ry p ers p e c ti v e th a t e x is ts in 

th e bay ar ea w it h mem bersh ip.

"And I support th e co mmittee as i t p re s e n tl y sta nds. And I would continue 

to exp re ss co nc ern ab ou t any a d d it io n s th a t would fu r th e r d ilu t e fro m 

th e re quirem ent o f th e m a jo rit y o f e le c te d o f f ic ia ls be low th e f o r t y - 

e ig h t perc ent th a t p re s e n tl y e x is t s ."

MR. CAHILL: "C ou ld I re sp ond. May I make a comment to Mary?"

MRS. WEINREB: "Joh n? "

MR. MISKIMEN: "Y es , I have a q u e s ti o n : th e blu e memo had in d ic a te d 

th a t fo u r o rg a n iz a ti o n s had re queste d re p re s e n ta ti o n on th e com m itt ee, 

tw o are m ent ioned, what are th e o th e r tw o? "

MISS WEIS: " I'm s o rry , I d o n 't know. Le on ard G ro te has th ose le t t e r s .

He sa id would handle them , and I d o n 't , d o n 't have th e names."

MR, MISKIMEN: "OK, th e second q u e s ti o n is , I g a th e r th e a u th o ri ze d s iz e 

o f th e co mmittee is 44 to 46 . . . (in a u d ib le p o rtio n ) As o f to d a y, we 

ha ve 44?"

tr rs s WEIS: "Y es. "

MR. CAHILL: "Do you have pla ns fo r th e a d d it io n a l tw o? "
201

MISS WEIS: "No, th e a d d itio n a l two a re t h a t th e ch ai rm an o r v ic e 

ch ai rm an can o r can n o t be re p r e s e n ta tiv e s on th e com m itte e. I t 

ha pp en s t h a t both o f the m a re mem bers so th e re a re fo r ty - f o u r 

u n t i l th e r e i s a ch an ge in th e c h a ir m a n sh ip ."

MR. CAHILL: "Now, I . . . "

MRS. WEINREB: "P ard on me. L et me j u s t . . . see is th e r e any one he re 

fro m a n o th e r gr ou p? . . . who w an ts to sp ea k? . . . a l r i g h t you are 

re p re s e n ti n g t h i s gro up /_RCF7 and t h a t is th e gr ou p th a t . . . "

• MRS. GOTELLI: " A c tu a ll y , I can sp ea k f o r m y self , i f I may. I re p re s e n t

a sta te w id e o rg a n iz a ti o n o f e n v ir o n m e n ta li s ts . We a re a ls o we re 

in volv ed in ABAG's d e c is io n s . Not al w ay s be en on th e r i g h t s id e of 

wh at . . . wh at your p o in t of view i s . We do b e li e v e t h a t th e r e ha s to 

be re g io n a l p la n n in g on man y, many le v e ls . And i t means t h a t th e re 

mu st be c o o rd in a ti o n . I d o n 't know i f Mr. C a h ill f e l t any h o s t i l i t y

• h e re to d a y . I c e r ta in ly d id .

" I d o n 't th in k th e r e is a ne ed to c a l l a pers on down — a c i tiz e n who 

sta n d s b e fo re your com m itte e, and accuse him of ma king th r e a ts when 

he sa ys t h a t i f d o e s n 't re c e iv e th e ( in a u d ib le ) h e re , he w ill go h ig h e r. 

Tha t i s a m a tt e r of c o u rs e , n o t a t h r e a t .

" I s a t h e re to day an d f e l t trem en do us h o s t i l i t y and I be en on th e 

C it iz e n s Forum f o r now — s in c e i t s in c e p ti o n . And as I sa y , I may n o t 

ha ve your p o in t of vie w . I do c a re about c itiz e n s and as I sa y we 

a re a wo me n's gro u p , we a re s ta te w is e , we a re in c o rp o ra te d , we a re ta x 

ex em pt , e v e ry th in g . . . we a re e n v ir o n m e n ta li s ts . But . . . "

MR. DIRIPON: "W hat 's th e name o f th e gro up ?"

MR. CAHILL: "A.W. A.R .E ."

MRS. GOTELLI: " . . . I o b je c t when I come in to a room l ik e t h i s , and when 

I see c itiz e n s h avin g t o be c a lle d down beca use th e y do n ot ha ve th e 

a u th o rit y th a t you do s i t t i n g on t h i s bo ard . And I ha ve very good 

ra p p o rt w it h my s u p e r v is o r s , and you may c a l l t h i s a th r e a t i f you 

w ant, b u t i f su ch th in g s a re goin g to ta k e p la c e in ABAC, I s h a ll ta l k 

to th e s u p e rv is o rs in my own com munity and sa y 'H ey , i t ' s not th e r e .

The re i s no c i t i z e n in p u t th e r e . And when a c i tiz e n do es come b e fo re 

t h a t , th e y ha ve to be in s u lte d , o r c a lle d dow n, o r b e l i t t l e d . . . and 

I d o n 't th in k i t i s t o your c r e d i t . '

"So i t ' s n ot a t h r e a t , and sa y wha t you w ant, and c a ll i t o f f . But 

I n ev er wa nt t o come in to any ABAG m ee ting ag ain and see a c itiz e n 

tr e a te d th e . . . wha t I 'v e seen to d a y ."

MRS. WEINREB: "L et me sa y I am a p p a re n tl y th e new pers on to t h is kin d 

of d ia lo g u e . You a r e , a re new fa c es to me, and I came in j u s t e x p ec ti n g 

to see some c it i z e n s h e re . What I do sa y , I r e s p e c tf u lly d is a g re e w it h 

you, when Mr. C a h ill, you sa y , fro m alm ost th e begin n in g t h a t i f yo u, i f 

you d o n 't g e t th e k in d of an sw er you wa nt from t h i s g ro u p ,'y o u w ill c a rry 

i t h ig h e r, th a t i s a h o s t i l e k in d of re m ark . And th in k th e co m m itt ee

• re sp on ded to th a t — and perh aps th e co m m itte e ou gh t n ot to ha ve 

re sp onded to t h a t , b u t I . . . th a t d id r a th e r s e t th e to n e .
202

MR. CAHILL: " I 'm s o r r y t h a t ...........uiybe my ma nn er Jo n o t th e mo st

g e n tl e . . yo u know , and I wo uld a p o lo g iz e f o r t h a t . But X do f e e l 

i t i s a v i t a l l y Im p o rt a n t is s u e - - an d maybe t h a t i s why 1 am in 

h e r e , 'c h a r g i n g ' as much as I am.

" I t h i n k , I wo uld j u s t comme nt on th e q u e s ti o n Jo hn ask e d . X th in k 

t h a t th e s t a f f i n g on t h i s h as bee n v e ry in a d e q u a te . In o th e r wo rds : 

o u r l e t t e r w a s n 't d i s t r i b u t e d t o yo u — I d o n ’t se e how yo u we re 

su pp os ed t o make a ju dg m en t on u s . The o th e r two gr ou ps a r e n 't 

m en ti o n ed . The N a ti o n a l A ss o c ia ti o n o f I n d u s t r i a l P a rk s , I d o n 't 

know a n y th in g ab o u t th em . B u t, I wo uld say t o b o th Mary an d Jo h n , 

i n t h i s a r e a , t h a t when yo u d e c id e w h eth er yo u a r e t o ex pa nd o r n o t 

yo u ha ve t o lo o k a t g ro u p s .

"Now yo u may n o t wa nt t o ex pa nd i t f o r t h e i n d u s t r i a l p a rk s . But I 

th in k we ha ve made a ve ry go od c a s e o f why we ou gh t t o be in c lu d e d .

And, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s / s t a f f / memo was in a d e q u a te . T h a t' s th e 

re a so n we cam e h e r e , fo rw ar d h e re to d ay , was t o t r y to su pp le m en t . . . 

i n c a s e t h i s s o r t o f th in g came fo rw a rd . I' m r e a l l y ama zed t h a t my 

l e t t e r w a s n 't ev en d i s t r i b u t e d .

"B ut . . . I a p p r e c i a te you a r e new t o t h i s c o m m it te e, b u t we ha ve h a d , 

as an o r g a n iz a ti o n , some t r o u b l e w it h AB AG s t a f f in th e p a s t .

"A nd, maybe a t th e b e g in n in g when I r e f e r r e d t o t h i s th in g s co mi ng 

o u t w it h s e le c te d p e o p le , and yo u c o r r e c te d me t h a t t h i s co m m itt ee 

made th e a p p o in tm e n ts , I s t i l l th in k t h a t th e r e i s a d e f ic ie n c y h e re 

when th e co m m it te e d id n o t l e t o th e r g ro u p s kno w. Fo r ex am pl e, t h i s 

p a r t i c u l a r b lu e th in g / r e f e r r i n g t o 'P r o s p e c t s / 7 1

 d i d n 't g e t t h i s 

u n t i l th e 2 6 t h o f . . . o f Ja n u a ry a t o u r r e g u la r m eeti n g . Now I am 

th e c i t i z e n s gro up and a p p a r e n tl y n o t r e c e i v in g th e s e m a il in g s fro m 

ABAG, an d I c a n 't u n d e rs ta n d w hy ."

FEMALE VOICE: "T h is b lu e s h e e t? " / r e f e r r i n g t o s t a f f memo/

MR. CAHILL: "N o, I' m r e f e r r i n g t o t h i s t h i n g c a l le d 'P r o s p e c t s '. '”

MRS, WEINREB: "Y es , t h a t ' s when we a l l g o t t h a t . "

MRS. HENDERSON: " I go t on e o f the m y e s te r d a y ."

MRS. WEINREB: "L et me j u s t sa y we ha ve made th e d e s ig n a ti o n of th e 

gro up s b e f o r e t h a t was p r in t e d by s e v e r a l m o n th s. "

MR. CAHILL: "W e ll , I th in k i t was p re m a tu re t o make th e d e s ig n a ti o n s

b e fo re i t ' s ev en o u t t o th e p u b li c t o f in d o u t who w an ts t o be on b o a r d ."

MRS. WEINREB: "W el l . . . "

MR. CAHILL: "What p r i n c i p l e s o f s e l e c t i o n d id yo u u s e , c o u ld I as k ? "
203

MRS. WEINREB: "Y es . The p r i n c i p l e o f s e l e c t i o n we us ed f o r th e

n o n -c lc c tc d o f f i c i a l , to t r y Vo g e t a c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f th e gr o u p s in 

t h e Bay Ar ea t h a t w er e m aj o r g ro u p s . And i f y o u ' l l n o ti c e t h a t l a b o r , * 

in d u s t r y , b u s in e s s , m i n o r it ie s g ro u p , as f a r as a g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t 

gro up — th e Le ag ue o f Women V o te rs .

"S o t h a t we d id make t h a t a tt e m p t I . . . I' m by no mean s i n d i c a t i n g t o you 

t h a t we d id th a t p e r f e c t l y . Bu t we sp e n t q u it e a l o t of ti m e th in k in g 

a b o u t i t , d e b a ti n g i t . We d id n o t as k an y o f th e s e g ro u p s , we , as 

e le c te d o f f o c i a l s from many p a r t s o f th e Bay Area . . . We do f e e l , and 

maybe i t i s pr es um pt uo us on o u r p a r t , b u t we f e e l we ha ve some u n d e rs ta n d in g of th e v a ri o u s gro u p s i n t h e co m m un iti es we come fr om . So 

t h a t ' s on e t h in g t h a t we f e e l c o m p le te ly c o m fo rt a b le a b o u t.

"We may n o t a g re e w it h a l l o f th e g ro u p s , and I m ig ht sa y some o f th e 

gro u p s t h a t a r e on th e s e I 'm s u re I d o n 't a g re e w it h t h e i r v ie w p o in t, 

b u t we t r i e d v e ry h a rd t o g e t a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c r o s s - s e c t i o n w h il e

• k e e p in g th e o v e r a l l gr oup t o a re a s o n a b le s i z e . And t h a t was a ve ry 

im p o rt a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n ."

MR. CAHILL: "Madam C ha ir m an , I do n o t o b je c t t o an yo ne who h as be en 

s e le c te d h e re b u t I do t h i n k t h a t i t i s s t i l l n o t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , and 

I th in k t h a t t h e a d d it io n o f o u r gro up — and t h i s i s th e re a s o n I h a v e, 

ha ve come fo rw ard — wou ld c o r r e c t a s e r io u s an d g l a r i n g la c k on t h i s 

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by th e p u b l i c ."

MR. THIERRY: " I wo uld l i k e t o make an o b s e r v a ti o n . I th in k th e to n e 

f o r Mr. C a h i ll f e e l i n g whe n he s t a r t e d s p e a k in g t h a t th e co m m itt ee 

members sp ok e f i r s t an d th e y ha d a lr e a d y made up t h e i r mi nd s t h a t th e r e 

wo uld be no a d d it io n s t o co m m it te e and y e t yo u h a d n 't re c e iv e d a copy 

o f t h e l e t t e r r e q u e s ti n g a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n on th e co m m it te e.

I t do es seem l i k e y o u 'v e ha d a c lo s e d sh op t o b e g in w it h . I ca n w e ll 

u n d e rs ta n d how / i n a u d i b l e ^ . . • sp ea k i n an y o th e r way th a n he d i d , I 

th in k he was p ro p e r i n r e q u e s ti n g / i n a u d ib lj [7 . . I wo uld ha ve f e l t 

th e same w ay ."

MRS. HENDERSON: "Madam C ha ir m an . N o tw it h s ta n d in g th e r e c e i p t o r 

n o n - r e c e ip t o f h i s l e t t e r , I t h in k i t ou gh t t o be made c l e a r f o r th e 

re c o rd t h a t we ha d t h i s f o r an ag en da it e m and we we re aw ar e t h a t a 

numb er o f o th e r gro u p s w er e s e e k in g r e p r e s e n ta ti o n - and we ha d a s t a f f 

re co m m en da tio n w it h r e g a rd t o th e a d d it io n o f any o th e r gr ou ps t o any 

o th e r g ro u p . So we wer e aw ar e o f th e q u e s ti o n o f a d d it io n s t o th e 

c o m m it te e ."

MRS. WEINREB: " I s t h e r e an y o th e r comment by an y member o f th e co m m itt ee 

b e f o r e we ta k e a v o te on t h e . . . " I t i s an a c t io n it e m . On o u r 

re co m m en da tio n t o t h e E x e c u ti v e Co mm itt ee on e x p an si o n o f th e E nv ir on m en ta l 

Mana gement Ta sk F o rc e . n o t

"A nd , Mr. C a h i l l , i f yo u an d y o u r g ro u p , . . . f e e l s we ha ve .m ad e th e r i g h t 

d e c i s io n yo u ca n c e r t a i n l y a p p e a l t h a t d e c i s io n t o th e e x e c u ti v e b o a r d ."

• MR. CAHILL: "C ou ld I j u s t ask t h a t th e q u e s ti o n be d iv id e d , I d o n 't

b e l i e v e , s in c e th e o th e r p a r t i e s h a v e n 't bee n h e r e , yo u h a v e n 't 

h e ard t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n s , yo u ca n d e te rm in e i f yo u wan t t o op en up t o r 

an yo ne a d d i t i o n a l . But I wo uld l i k e i t d iv id e d as t o o u r gr ou p . . . 

w h e th er we o u ght t o be a ll o w ed o n to t h i s ta s k f o r c e . S e c o n d ly , yo u 

d e c id e as t o th e o th e r g ro u p s . "
204

MRS. WEINREB: " I am v e ry r e lu c t a n t t o do t h a t beca u se o th e r gr ou ps 

ha ve th e same r i g h t s t h a t yo u h a v e."

MR. CAHILL: " T h a t' s r i g h t . MRS. WEINREB: And th e r e f o r e I th in k we a re 

t a l k i n g a bout ex pa nd in g i t , t h a t i s th e g e n e r a l q u e s ti o n , an y v o te s 

t h a t we sh o u ld ex pan d th e n we w i l l d is c u s s , how f a r , how man y, e t c .

So I th in k we sh ould l o g i c a l l y , d iv id e i n t h a t way and t a l k t h a t way .

And v o te f i r s t on th e g e n e r a l p o li c y o f ex p an si o n o r n o n -e x p a n si o n .

And i f we d e c id e t o ex pa nd, to . . . "

MR. CRABB: "Madam Cha irm an , ca n I make on e o b s e rv a ti o n ?"

MRS. WEINREB: "Y es , Mr. C ra bb."

MR. CRABB: "D id any o th e r gro up th ough h e r e , come and make th e e f f o r t 

t o wan t t o be as ke d t o j o i n th e . . . "

MRS, WEINREB: " I presum e n o t, b e ca u se 1 as ked and nobody r a is e d t h e i r 

h a n d ."

MR. CRABB: "W el l, I th in k th e re a s o n f o r a sk in g t h a t i s t h a t i t i s 

im p o rt a n t we made an e f f o r t . T he re a re 2 e x tr a s e a ts / in a u d ib le ? / "

MRS. WEINREB: "No s i r . T hat i s a r a t h e r c o m p li cat ed o r g a n iz a ti o n a l 

m a tt e r. Un de r ABAG by-l aw s th e y ca n a p p o in t th e C h air p e rs o n and 

V ic e C h a ir p e rs o n to ea ch com m itte e. Now, i f th o s e p e o p le wer e n o t 

a lr e a d y on th e ta s k f o r c e , th e y c o u ld a p p o in t th o s e tw o e x tr a e le c te d 

o f f i c i a l s . As i t h a p p e n s, th e tw o p e rs o n s th e E x e c u ti v e Co mm itt ee 

c h o se to be c h a ir p e rs o n an d v ic e c h a ir p e rs o n we re a lr e a d y d e sig n a te d 

by on e j u r i s d i c t i o n o r a n o th e r. So t h a t we d id n o t ha ve t o ex pa nd to 

4 6 , and as we in d ic a te d , we w an te d t o kee p th e co m m itt ee as w or ka bl e 

as p o s s ib le and je t . . . t h e re a so n i t i s t h a t la r g e i s to g e t r e p r e s e n ta ti o n

MR. CAHILL: "You know Mary s a id i t d i d n 't m a tt e r i f we were members o f a 

co m m itte e o r n o t. T hat we ha ve f u l l r i g h t to p a r t i c i p a t e . And y e t I 

as ked . . . I f I we re a member of t h i s co m m itt ee I c ould as k f o r a 

p ro c e d u ra l d i v is io n o f th e q u e s ti o n . And p ro c e d u re h as a l o t t o do 

w it h y o u r r i g h t s . And h e re you a r e n o t a ll o w in g . . . I wo uld p r e f e r i f 

you t r e a t us — v o te us up o r down . So we ha ve a c l e a r m a tt e r t o go 

t o th e E x e c u ti v e Bo ard w it h . R ath er th a n ha ve i t in th e m id dl e o f t h i s 

m a tt e r ."

MRS. WEINREB: "Ro d, you ha d so m et hin g t o sa y . . . "

MR. DIRIDON: "As a m a tt e r o f p a rli m e n ta ry p ro c e d u re , you ca n o n ly as k t h a t tl 

m ot io n be d iv id e d . I f th e mak er o f th e m ot io n d o e s n 't ch oo se t o d iv id e i t , 

yo u w i l l ha ve to do t h a t by m o ti o n ."

£T ap e C ha ng e/

MR. MISKIMEN: " I su g g e s t we d e f e a t t h i s m o ti o n , s e le c tin g o f co m m itte es 

i s al w ay s d i f f i c u l t I th in k , and I d o n 't th in k we sh ould d e la y a c ti o n 

u n t i l n e x t mo nth p a r t i c u l a r l y whe re th e o th e r gr oups a p p a re n tl y ha ve a ls o 

a s k e d .

" I t i s my vi ew t h a t th e gr ou p — th e R eg io n al C it iz e n s Forum — ha s made 

a l o g i c a l re a so n f o r why th e y s h o u ld be on th e co m m itte e. I th in k a ls o

*

«
205

V V x <t / j C < — L N c P p A —v J^lA^LAl. J r :

ABA G Bay Area plan rapped

« The proposed Bay Area Environmental Management 

Plan drew much (ire ar.d no praise Wednesday from 

Paul Cahill, chairman of the San Francisco Bay Area 

Regional Citizens Forum

Cahill spoke at the annual meeting of the Marin 

Coalition, addressing about 130 persons at a luncheon at 

Peacock Gap

The environmental plan w ill be voted on in June by 

the Association of Bay Area Governments Cahill said it 

"promotes a strategy antagonistic to individual choice 

and economic freedom . . would force poop!' ‘■-ark into 

the core cit ies and would choke cm '• m .n ity 

decision-making" by depriving citizens . ’ -ia control 

over land use

The plan is designed to meet federal Environmental t 

Protntion Agency long-range standards tor clean air. . 

water supply. sewage treatment and solid waste man- I 

agement "I t's inadequate — it fails to assess the i 

economic and social impacts" on citizens and their ' 

communities. Cahill charged He also called lor a better i 

cost-benefit analysis of the plan.

He noted that his furunt was set up as an advisory 

panel by the Bay Area association four years ago. 

“ then was oe-funded af te r the firs t year " af ter 

opposing ef forts by Asse mblyman John Knox, DRiehmond. to legislate regional government into being.

"Then along came EPA . . Cahill said "ABAG j 

made an offer 10 EPA that they could not refuse" and i 

began drafting the environmental plan with >1.3 nullion i 

support from EPA

Cahill noted that the Environmental Task Force — 

which tie said wus "hand pickl'd" to support regional ! 

ism — had removed the eontroversi.il proposed land use 1 

controls from the draft plan in recent weeks But they • 

could be reinstated, he warned, by votes of ABAG's | 

regional planning committee April 5. by the ABAG ' 

executive board April 6. or at the meeting of the , 

association's General Assembly June 10

The draft plan contains "repugnant features." Cahill 

said, especia lly local enlorc ement imposed irom 

shove The mindset of the drafters is essentially nogro wth" and could have an impact ranging into billions , 

of dollars in business loss in the Bay Area, higher rente 

and lost jobs and housing.

Cahill said that on one hand the Bay Area has been 

threatened with dental of federal and state grants if it 

doesn't ailept the ntar.t'Cemeni plan, and or. the other 

hand tie area long has been misinformed" about 

harm ful impacts from the plan by its creators.

Cah ill pra ised San Rafael City Councilma n John

Mtskimen — in the audience — fo r protesting the 

exclusion of the citizens' forum during ABAG committee sessions Miskimeit. an ABAG delegate, w aile d 

that his protest drew a response from a fellow ABAG 

director that "Cahill doesn’t agree with us ar.j he's 

most effective."

35-395 0 - 79 - 14
206

Regional

Citizens

Forum

Ju n e 9 , 19 78

llillie Bo wle s

1st Vic e Pres iden t

Wi Ilian. Stetson

2nd Vic e Pres iden t

Sandy Smith

Secretary

To: D e le g a te s o f ABAG 

C i t i e s an d C o u n ti e s

From:

*

P au l C. C a h il l' , ____

P r e s i d e n t , San F ra n c is c o Bay 

A re a R e g io n a l C itiz e n s Foru m

Ga ry Bo sle y

Dal e Burrow

K . Weldon Crabb

I'r ne-.l Curtis

I hnresa Die tr ic h

Marty f arman

Te rry Fa ulkn er

William Fullam

V i Goto lli

Dav id Grappo

John Ba rns

Bay Heaps

Joann Jameson

An ne Kaufman

Dorothy Keener

Richclas Ku drovzeff

P h ilip Larra bee

Belen Marlin

Ralph Morrell

W illiam Pis enti

f ed Ree d

I red Stitt

.inditti Sutherland

Bob Th ier ry

Ch arles Tooqoo d

Bobbie Va rgas

W illiam White

Rep re se ntative

Counc il

Th roug h in d iv id u a l c o n v e r s a ti o n s w it h many o f yo u, we 

c i t i z e n s in th e R e g io n a l C itiz e n s Foru m r e a l i z e t h a t many 

o f f i c i a l s f e e l co m p el le d to a c c e p t t h i s p la n , ho wev er 

u n p a la ta b le i t i s . D e s p it e th e h o o p la ab o u t "d em oc ra cy " 

an d " s o l i d a r i t y " , yo u f e e l l i k e yo u a r e on th e b u s in e s s 

en d o f a lo a d e d gu n. Th e t h r e a t s fro m th e f e d e r a l 

b u r e a u c r a ts an d th e S t a t e ARB a re in d e e d m en ac in g.

Ye t we c i t i z e n s c a l l up on you to r e v o l t u n d e r t h i s 

s tr o n g arm p r e s s u r e . R e je c t t h i s p la n wh ose p r o v is io n s 

w i l l n o t o n ly o v e rt h ro w th e p r i n c i p le s o f lo c a l home 

r u l e an d in d iv id u a l c h o ic e , b u t w i l l c r i p p l e th e econ omy 

o f th e Sa n F ra n c is c o Bay A re a.

We as k you to c o n s id e r t h r e e ma in p o in ts .

1• The p la n p ro m is e s n e a r -te r m ec on om ic s t a g n a t io n .

As R. R o b ert B r a t t a i n p o in te d o u t in h is A p ril 19 78 

COLAB r e p o r t , Am bien t A ir Q u a li ty S ta n d ard s : G oa ls o r Gods, 

p . 2 , " th e r e i s no way o f a t t a i n i n g an d m a in ta in in g £ ch c 

s ta n d a rd s ad o p te d by th e p l a n / e x c e p t l i m i ti n g th e gr ow th 

o f th e Bay A re a ." Th e p u b li c i n t e r e s t i n s i s t s t h a t you 

o f f i c i a l s o n ly ad o p t s ta n d a rd s o f a i r c le a n l i n e s s t h a t 

a re a t th e same ti m e s a f e an d c o m p a ti b le w it h th e o th e r 

w o rt h w h il e s o c i a l an d ec on om ic g o a ls o f o u r c i t i z e n s .

As I u rg ed Mr. Dean M a c ris , ABAG A s s o c ia te 

E x e c u ti v e D i r e c t o r , o v e r two y e a rs ag o , t h i s $4 m illio n 

stu d y i s l i k e l y to be th e o n ly " s h o t" Bay A re a o f f i c i a l s 

w i l l ha ve in c o m p re h e n si v e ly s tu d y in g th e e n v ir o n m e n ta l 

q u e s tio n . ABAG T as k F o rc e m us t sp en d am pl e m on ie s 

r e s e a rc h in g an d d e te rm in in g a i r •c l e a n l i n e s s s ta n d a rd s 

t h a t a re a c h ie v a b le an d d e s ir e d by th e p e o p le o f th e 

Bay A re a.
207

June 9, 1978

This was not done. Instead, today's proposed transmittal 

letter apologeticall y and inaccurately states "... we /SBAG7 have 

been obliged to accept all standards as given, without assessing 

their wi sdom o r efficacy." In the face of the real evidence of the 

unre asonable economic and social burdens that this plan promises to 

visit on our Bay Area such a "Pontius Pilate" attitude is bad 

leader shi p.

It is not only the lack of balanced, rational air standards 

that promises to retard growth, but the deliberate undersizing of 

sewers, and the overall replacement of the business and free ente rprise system for a system of central government controls.

2. .This plan represents an inordinate advance in the growth 

of Regional Powe rs . Counties such as Napa and Sonoma are aware of 

this danger and have chosen not to be part of the establishment of 

this plan. Not unlike Esau, cities and counties seem ready to give 

up their birthright for a mess of porridge. While the particular 

decisions being made today are less onerous than those originally 

being proposed, they do establ ish the principle of collectivist 

decision-making. The plan, once approved, will be Federallyenforc eable against any city or county who presently disagrees or 

later decides to procee d on an alternate course.

■ 3. This plan which has such great uncertainty as to its cost 

and its af fordability should not be ad op te d As the Regional Citizens 

Foru m pointed out in early hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Report, there is a totally incomplete assessment of the fiscal, 

economic, social and environmental impacts of this report. Review 

of the Final Environmental Impact Report shows that this defect has 

not been correc ted ar.d that the F.E.I.R. neithe r meets the requirement 

of law or of sound decision-making. Serious estimates of costs to 

implement the air strictures run in the neighborhood of $400 million 

dollars. Further, it is foolish for local governments to bind 

themselves with expensive commitments for water and sewage projects, 

as well as other expenditures to be required by the plan, in the 

face of the passage of Proposition 13, the Jarvis-Gann. Property 

Tax Limitation Initiative. On these grounds alone, delegates to the 

ABAG General Assembly should delay adoption of anv plan.

In conclusion, the reas onable policy for ABAG leaders in the 

San F ranci sco Bay Are a is to reject the adoption of this plan.
208

Political Action Coalition 

fo r the En vir on ment 0

390 Grand Avenue, A p t. 2, 

Oa kla nd CA 94610

O

$

TESTIMONY OF LOUISA JASKULSKI, CO-CHAIR OF POLITICAL ACTION COALITION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (P .A .C .E .) , SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY 

AND NATURAL RESOURCES, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS HEARING, 23 - 24 JUNE, 

1978, IN SANFFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA ON THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS' ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

The P o lit ic a l A cti o n C o a li ti o n fo r th e Enviro nm en t (P .A .C .E .) — an Ea stba y o rg a n iz a ti o n 

o f 300 e n v ir o n m e n ta li s ts , p u b lic em ploy ee s, m in o r it y , women's and con sum er ad vo ca tes 

conc erne d w it h th e im pact o f re g io n a l agencie s, pl ans and p o li c ie s on our s o c ie ty — 

wa nts to commend th e hundreds o f lo c a l e le cte d and appoin te d o f f i c ia l s and p riv a te 

c it iz e n s who gave tho usan ds o f ho ur s so d ilig e n t ly and c o n s c ie n ti o u s ly to pr od uc e 

wh at is in some re spects an adm irable Environm enta l Management Plan f o r th e San 

Fra ncis co Bay Reg ion .

PACE su pports th e s o lid wa ste el em en t e n th u s ia s tic a ll y , and supports th e w a te r q u a li ty 

and w ate r supply elem en ts as accepta ble co mprom ise s.

However, PACE opp ose s th e A ir Q u a li ty Management Plan o f th e ABAG Environm enta l Management Plan unle ss:

(1 ) th e C a li fo r n ia A ir Resources Board amends i t to in c lu d e more Re asonably 

A v a ila b le C o ntr ol Te ch no logy (RACT), in c lu d in g a w id e r rang e o f tr a n s p o rta tio n 

c o n tro ls , such as:a 35% in cre a se in mass t r a n s it rid e rs h ip by 19 85 ; a d d it io n a l 

lo c a l fin a n c ia l supp ort f o r mass t r a n s it th ro ugh re g io n a l p a rk in g ta xes an d /o r 

in cre ased b ri d g e t o ll s ; c re a ti o n o f a u to -fr e e zones in p a rts o f th e m ajo r 

c e n tra l busi ness d i s t r ic t s ; o th e r e q u ita b ly -i m p o se d p a rk in g c o n tr o ls ; o r

(2 ) th e C a li fo r n ia A ir Re sources Bo ard dis appro ves and re tu rn s th e AQMP to ABAG 

to en able lo c a l governm ents to do more sould searc hin g and to deve lop more 

re asonably a v a il a b le c o n tro l te c h n o lo g ie s .

W ithout one o f th ese two ev en ts o c c u rrin g , th e ABAG AQMP w i l l remain wh at i t now is , a 

fla w ed comprom ise th a t in co rp o ra te s o n ly P o lit ic a lly Accepta ble C o ntr ol Tec hno lo gy (PA CT). 

PACE ca nn ot supp ort such a pla n wh ere th e o b je c tiv e is to meet a hea lth-b ased sta n d a rd , 

and th e conse quences w i ll in clu d e a less en ed dependence on th e p r iv a te auto m obile.

We re cogniz e th e d i f f i c u l t p o s it io n in which ABAG and lo c a l go ve rnm ent o f f i c ia l s now fin d 

th em se lves . O ppositio n to th e December 1977 d r a f t AQMP has been m ass iv e, and by and 

la rg e th e Bay Area environm enta l movement d id n o t e f fe c t iv e ly su p p o rt what was once an 

accepta ble p la n . We th in k th a t Co ngress and th e Enviro nm en ta l P ro te c ti o n Agency have 

s e t an u n r e a lis tic tw o-y ear tim e frame in whic h to deve lop and m e a n in g fu lly d is cuss 

such re g io n a l envi ro nm enta l p la n s. In p a r t ic u la r , v it a l s o c ia l, econ om ic and employment 

im pa ct assessments which should have been a v a il a b le d u rin g th e fo rm u la ti o n o f th e p o li c ie s 

were n o t a v a il a b le u n t il la te Ja nu ar y 1978 ( A ir Q u a li ty T echnic al Memorandum 15). By 

th a t ti m e , o p p o s it io n to th e pla n had c r y s ta lli z e d , and few i f any c it y o r county pla nnin g 

s ta ffs had th e tim e o r in c li n a tio n to make use o f th e d a ta . Those da ta showed c le a r 

economic and s o c ia l g a in s, p a r t ic u la r ly to th e re g io n 's in n e r c it ie s , b u t a fo re c a s t of 40 ,000 fe w er a v a il a b le jo bs by th e ye a r 2000 (a bout 1-1 /2 % o f th e a n tic ip a te d la b o r 

fo rc e ), when ta ke n o u t o f c o n te x t, o n ly fa nn ed th e f ir e s o f o p p o s it io n .
209

ABARGE >

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA RECYCLING GROUPS AND

ENVIRONMENTALISTS

1581 - 11th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

(415) 566-0886

STATEMENT BY DAVID I. TAM, REPRESENTING ABARGE, ON ASSOCIATION OF BAY

APEA GOVERNMENTS' REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN, JUNE 24, 1978

OVERSIGHT HEARING CONDUCTED BY CONGRESSMAN LEO RYAN ON ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

Thank you, Congressman Ryan, for making available time on the second day of your hearing

to receive testimony about the least controversial element of the Association of Bay

Area Governments' Environmental Management Plan, namely, the regional solid waste

management plan. It was put together by two to three staff planners, with the help

of an advisory committee, on a two-year budget of about $70,000, as I understand it.

It is intended to fulfill the mandate of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of

1976, as well as Senate Bill 424, authored by State Senator John Nejedly of Walnut Creek

who has authored the lion's share of significant solid waste legislation in California.

ABAG has been designated to the Environmental Protection Agency by the State Solid

Waste Management Board as the appropriate regional solid waste planning agency; SB

424 restricts its planning to those issues identified in county plans as regional.

I know that you have a special interest in solid waste legislation; I hope you will

be pleased to hear from me, especially after yesterday's testimony on the air quality

plan, that the ABAG solid waste plan is not too tough and not too weak, in the

view of most Bay Area recycling groups and environmentalists. We do have a few

specific comments about solid waste planning that bear on Federal involvement in the

process.

First, one of the only controversial proposals in the draft plan had to do with what

is now Policy 7, "Federal, state and local governments should adopt legislative and

administrative changes which promote waste reduction, where appropriate," and Action

7.1, "Change manufacturing standards and regulation, where appropriate." The original
210

description of Action 7.1 (now at page 76 of the April 1978 version) included among

changes that "may be needed" the very controversial container deposit legislation.

On a 12-8 vote, members of the ABAG Executive Board on April 20th voted to delete the

phrase "Mandate recycling through a deposit bottle program," after dire warnings to

the Alameda County Board of Supervisors from managers of five glass manufacturers

that such legislation would cause.extensive layoffs. In May, one of the manufacturers,

Owens-Illinois, installed a more m o d e m furnace and laid off 250 of its employees.

So far, only one of the 93 Bay Area cities, Berkeley, has a container deposit ordinance

on the books, and it is tied up for several more months in an appeal by several

liquor and soft-drink retailers of an Alameda County Superior Court decision upholding its validity. Although several other cities are prepared to adopt similar

ordinances, primarily as a means of reducing litter from broken glass, I think it

is fair to say that the dislocations consequent upon adoption of this eminently sound,

energy - conserving, job - creating, and anti - inflationary public policy could best

be handled nationwide, if necessary along the lines of the recently - enacted Connecticut

law, which provides for job — retraining and Income — guarantees for those workers

losing jobs.

A second observation concerns Policy 2 (page 68) , "The amount of municipal wastes

going to Bay Area landfills should be reduced by 30% by 1982, with emphasis on jobintensive, inexpensive source separation/recycling measures." ABARGE actively campaigned for this goal, and I have enclosed a one-page justification for it which was

directed to the ABAG Executive Board. A concern expressed by several local officials

was that the goal not be sanctionable, that is, that a failure for the region as a

whole to achieve it not result in the cutoff of Clean Water, Urban Mass Transit, etc.,

monies. ABARGE agrees that categorical funds for other environmental programs should

not be cut off if the solid waste goal isn't attained. However, we do believe that

the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress should begin to set some modest but

realistic numerical goals, so that teeth can be put into the regional and state plans
wh ic h the co un ti es and ci ti es a re ac tively tr yi ng to get fund ed in the FY 1979 Feder al

budget at ra th er gene ro us levels?a re mor e th aiPa p os t- Pr op os it io n 13 w or k re lief bil l

for pla nne rs. Th e EPA, in its Fo ur th R eport to Congre ss on R esource Reco ve ry and

Wa st e Re du ct io n of A ug us t 1977, es timated th e po te nt ia l di ve rs io n fro m lan dfill

for wa st e re du ct io n tech ni qu es to be 10Z, for sou rce se pa ra ti on and recycl in g to b e

25Z, and for mi xe d wa st e pr ocessing, includ in g en er gy convers ion , to b e 80Z in ur ba n

,r

are as (56Z na tionwide, 70Z urbaniz ed) (pag es 7-8 o f Fo ur th R ep or t) . Isn't it tim e

for EPA to iss ue pl an ni ng gu idelines to the sta tes receiv in g Fe deral m on ey re ga rd in g

la ndfill di ve rs io n to su ch b en ef ic ia l ends as ma te ri al s rec ove ry, ene rgy con ser vation,

and energy develo pm en t? Al th ou gh Californ ia and som e oth er sta tes do not h av e a

ma jo r pr ob le m w it h ope n, bu rn in g dumps , the re's n o goo d re ason to han d out pl an ni ng

mo ne y to br in g the co un tr y up to the lev el of Ca li fo rn ia in the mid -19 60's. IF the

EP A an d/or Co ngress does set some sta ndards for w as te reduct io n (say 5Z b y w ei gh t of

re si denti al an d co mm er ci al soli d waste), source sepa ra ti on a nd rec ycling (at least 10Z)

and m ix ed w as te pr oc es si ng (if an y of the curr en t generati on o f ene rgy conversi on

system s are cos t ef fe ct iv e — and w e be li ev e the Co ns um at — typ e con trolled air

in ci ne ra ti on sys tems ar e the o nl y suc h sy st em s) , and IF C ongre ss is wi ll in g to

pr ovide sign if ic an t eq ui pm en t gra nts or financ ia l ris k gu arantees — T HEN leg ally

enfo rc ea bl e sancti on s on st ate and re gional sol id wa st e pla ns w ou ld be approp ria te.

Finall y, we 'd lik e to po in t out that to get AB AG to ado pt the 30Z landf ill d iv er si on

goal, we h ad to ov er co me the b ia s again st re cy cl in g prog ra ms as small and ineffe cti ve,

and the co ro ll ar y as su mp ti on on the part of mos t pu bl ic wo rk s directo rs, cit y planners,

and ele cte d of fi ci al s that only big, capi ta l- in te ns iv e en er gy recov ery fac ilities wil l

ena ble them to ov er co me the ir shorta ge s of lan dfi ll. It's got ten to the p oint w here

pub lic mo ne y w il l be .wasted, if pu bl ic offici al s co nt in ue to thi nk of wh at 's in the

gar bage can s as on ly was te . Ur ba n w as te co ll ec ti on in the Bay Area, wher e uni oni zed ,

costs typ ic al ly $40 - $50 per ton. Tr an sf er o pe ra ti on s to rem ote lan dfills w il l add

an other $8 - $15 pe r ton, mu ch of it for tr uc k fuel. En er gy rec overy p la nt s will
212

probably cost $7 - $15 per ton provided the world price of oil stays where It is.

Separate curbside pickup programs, such as the E.C.ology program of El Cerrito

or the Davis and Modesto programs use smaller crews and trucks, so their collection

costs are about $10 per ton less — and they do not require landfilling. A major

task of AEAG, in cooperation with the State Solid Waste Management Board, will be

to promote the growth t ; such programs by finding ways to stabilize the seasonally

fluctuating market for newsprint. There is a significant job potential here:

El Cerrito, a suburb of 23,000, now recycles 10Z by weight of its garbage (33Z of

households voluntarily participating) and employs 12 full-time workers whose efforts

are largely sustained by sales of recovered material (there is some CETA subsidy

during the start-up phase, which began in September 1977). The El Cerrito experience

suggests a Bay Area job potential in excess of 2,000 — provided markets for the

recovered material can be found. The landfill cost saving from recycling 2 million of

6.9 million tons by 1982 @ $7 per ton average would be $14 million. It should be

pointed out that curbside residential pickups would account for only 30Z of that

2 million tons; commercial, industrial packaging, construction/demolition, litter/

street sweepings, and food processing wastes — all of which are to some extent already

being recycled — would divert an additional 1.4 million tons from our irreplaceable

marshes and canyons.

In conclusion, I would just like to observe that this very worthwhile plan is built

on the sweat of many dedicated California recyclers who have been working for ten years

and more to build community-based recycling organizations. Their statewide organization,

the California Resource Recovery Association,has published a 150 page book, Recycling:

The State of the Art, available for $10, including postage and handling, from

Community Environmental Council, 924 Anacapa St., Suite B4A, Santa Barbara, CA 93102.

I give these publication details because neither the Environmental Protection Agency

or the California Solid Waste Management Board has published any studies with such a

wealth of practical detail.
213

flW C E

ASSO CIATION OF BAY ARSA rn -v -T T w r. GTCCPS

AND E W IH lb E M A L IS T S

c / o B a rry , 1581 1 1 th Av en ue

S an P ra ru-i sm 94 12 2 566-0 8 8 6 April 16, 1978

to d D ir id c n , P r e s id e n t

A s s o c ia tio n o f Bay A re a Gov er nm en ts IE : E x e c u ti v e C c r c itt e e Re view o f IMP —

H o te l C la r r a x i t , B e r k e le y CA 94 70 5 30 4 S o lid W aste R e c y c li n g G oa l (4 /2 0 /7 8 )

D ea r P r e s id e n t D ir id o n and E x e c u tiv e Com mitt ee Mem bers :

A3ARGE — an ad h oc c o a l i t i o n o i 50 Bay Are a r e c y c li n g pr og ra m s and s e v e r a l en vir on m en ta l

o r g a n iz a tio n s a c t iv e l y se e k in g r e s p o n s ib le s o l id w a ste managem ent — u rg es your siy p c r t

f o r th e g o a l s , p o l i c i e s and a c t io n s o f th e d r a f t fiml id W as te Man agem ent P la n . I n part i c u l a r , we s t r o n g ly su p p o rt P o lic y 2s

Th e am ount o f m u n ic ip a l w a ste s g o in g t o Ba y Are a l a n d f i l l * sh o u ld b e redu ce d by

30 4 by 1 982, w it h em phasi s c n j o b - in t e n s iv e , in e x p e n siv e so u r c e s e p a r a t io n /

r e c y c li n g m easures.

P o lic y 2 d o es n o t de pe nd e x c l u s i v e l y , b u t p r im a r ily , cn su ch te c h n iq u e s f o r a t t a in ­

men t o f th e p re p ose d 19 82 g o a l; sone" j u r is d ic t io n s m ig h t under ta ke m ech anic al m a te r ia l

r e c o v e r y o r s - a l l - s c a l e in c in e r a t io n p r o j e c t s w hic h w ou ld c o n tr ib u te t o t h e 30 4 f ig u r e .

B ut th e te c h n iq u e s em phasi ze d in th e ASAG p la n , p a r t ic u la r ly i n A c ti o n s 6 . 2 , 8 .2 , and

1 0 .2 (w hi ch u t i l i z e S3 65 0 l i t t e r ta x m onie s earm arke d f o r w a ste r e d u c tio n e d u c a tio n ,

m arketi ng o f r e c y c la b le s , an d so u rce s e p a r a tio n pr og ra m s) w i l l , i f c a r r ie d o u t co ns c ie n t io u s ly b y lo c a l go ver nm en ts w or ki ng i n r e g io n a l c o n c e r t, b r in g th e Ba y Are a t o

t h e 30 4 g o a l, and t o n a t io n a l p r e -e r in e n o e in w a ste r e d u c t io n , r e so u r c e an d en er gy

c o n s e r v a tio n , an d th e c r e a t io n o f up wa rds o f 1 ,0 0 0 s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g new jo b s .

P h y s ic a l D im ensi ons o f M u n ic ip al t e s t e , and P o r t ie r s R e c y c la b le : By 1 9 80, t h e Bay Are a

w i l l g e n e r a te 13 m illio n to n s o f r e f u s e a n n u a ll y . A cc ord in g t o ASAG s t a f f r e fin a n e n ts

o f cou n ty s o l id w a ste p la n n in g d a ta , about 6 .1 m illio n to m s i s a g r ic u lt u r a l, sewag e

slu d g e ( P o lic ie s 15 - 16 ) o r haza rd ous w a ste s ( P o lic ie s 1 1 - 1 4 ) . The re m ain in g

6 .9 m illio n to n s i s c l a s s i f i e d m u n ic ip a l, and c o n ta in s t h e g r e a t e s t p o t e n t ia l f a r

r e c y c li n g and f o r l a n d f i l l c o s t s a v in g s . ABARGE's e s tim a te s o f t h e r e c y c li n g p o t e n t ia l a r e :

1982 R e c y c la b le

Typ e o f “Wa ste * T e n s/y r . 4 T o r s/y e a r Rec ycling Techniques

R e s id e n tia l (6 34 n ew sp rin t,

ca rdb oard , g l a s s , m e ta ls )

Co m mercial (3 54 ca rdboard ,

30 4 o th e r f i b e r , 84 g la s s )

2;4oo;ooo 25 6 0 0 ,0 00 V olu nta ry home se p a r a tio n ; cu rb si du

p ic k u p /r e c y c li n g c e n t e r d r o p o ff.

1 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0 35 600 ,0 0 0 V olu nta ry s t o r e / o f f i c e s e p a r a tio n ;

b a li n g /r e h a x in g f o r pic kup

I n d u s t r ia l (p ap er, wo od ,

o th e r p ack agin g)

7 4 0 ,0 0 0 25 185 ,0 0 0 I n -p la n t co,p a r e tia n f — p ic kup

U n c o ll e c te d 1 7 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 Rone a v a ila b le

C c n str u c ti c n /D e m o li ti c n 1 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 35 4 6 0 ,0 0 0 Wood S a lv a g e ; cr u sh in g and r e u se

o f c o n c r e te a s a g g r e g a te ; re b a r

L it t e r /S t z e e t Sw ee pi ngs 1 8 0 ,0 0 0 10 2 0,0 00 S hred d in g/m agn eti c se p a r a tio n .

Fo od P r o c e ssin g 420 ,0 0 0 35 1 50,0 00 A g r ic u ltu r a l la n d a p p lic a tio n

T o ta ls 6 ,9 1 0 ,0 0 0 30 2 ,0 1 5 ,0 0 0

*

Eco no mic F e a s i b i li t y and D e s ir a b i l i t y ; T o ta l l a n d f i l l o f th e 6 .9 m illio n to n s en t a i l s

e x p e n siv e tr a n s f e r o p e r a tio n s f o r r e s t c i t i e s , a t $8 - $1 5 per to n . E h a ll- s c a le (2 5 - 100

to n per day ) in c in e r a t io n sy ste m s w i l l c o s t $ 7 .5 0 p e r to n and v p t la r g e - s c a le (5 00 - 2 ,0 0 0

to n p er day ) en ergy r e co v e ry syst em s r e q u ir e $5 0 - $8 0 m illio n o f p u b lic ly gu ara n te ed b en d s,

w ou ld c r e a te fe w er th an 20 0 Ba y Are a jo b s , an d a r e s t i l l some wh at r is k y te c h n o lo g y . B ut

th e y co u ld h an d le about 304 o f th e t o t a l m u n ic ip a l w a s t e .' T h p h a si s on so u r c e s e p a r a tio n and

r e c y c li n g i s p r e f e r a b le fo r s e v e r a l re a so n s: (1 ) th e y a r e l e s s c a p it a l in t e n s iv e , n ee d in g

sm a ll eq uip m en t and p la n n in g and m ar ke t dev el opm en t; (2 ) th ey have e x is t in g s t a t e f in a n c ia l

su pp ort — S3 6 5 0 , en a cte d i n 1 9 77, w i l l make ab ou t $3 m illio n a v a ila b le f o r f i v e y e a r s t o

th e Bay A rea ; (3 ) th e y w i l l c r e a t e in e x c e s s c f 1 ,0 0 0 Bay Are a j e b s ; (4) w it h reven ues from

s a l e o f re c o v e r e d m a te r ia ls and a c r e d it f o r l a n d f i l l s a v in g s , th e y sh ould b e s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g ;

and (5 ) th e y a r e f l e x i b l e , l o c a lly - c o n t r o lle d pr ograms w hic h ca n ex pa nd o r c o n tr a c t dep en di ng

on u n p r e d ic ta b le cir c u m sta n c e s. A m aj or ta s k o f th e A3AG p la n , i n o c o p e r a ti o n w it h th e

S t a t e S o lid W as te Management Board , i s th e s t a b i li z a t i o n o f lo c a l m a r k e ts , p a r t ic u la r ly f o r

g l a s s and n ew sp rin t; e x i s t i n g pr og ra m s w ou ld be g r e a t ly str en g th en ed a s a r e s u l t . S in c e

str o n g m ark et s f o r ali m in u n an d fe r r o u s m e ta ls and, s e a s o n a lly , n ew sp rin t f o r heme in s u la t i on ,

a lr e a d y e x i s t , a r e g io n a l cc rm it m en t t o r e c y c li n g i s th e l e a s t r i s k y , m ost f l e x i b l e an d

r e l a t i v e l y in e x p e n siv e appr oa ch t o co n ser v in g w aste d r e so u r o e s «ual l an df i l l c o s t s .

TAMA LIPSHITZ'' PAM EELCHAM3ER . . . . . . KTTTi.cwrru r- .-r -v va o v r Tvamv pip p t c jC J SEAN UAIICRAN

S anta Ros a COC, B e r k e le y

(7 07 ) 539-9 953 5 4 8 -3 2 2

STEVE E3F U N

San Bru no

593-2 516

KAREN PICKETT

O akla n d-M er ri tt

531-4 911

NEIILSMITH CHUCK PAPKE TERRY HARRISON SEAN HALLORAN

Sa n R a fa e l E l C e r r it o E co lo gy C en te r San J o se R e c y c li n g

456-4 980 2 34-7 445 527-6 780 (4 08 ) 277-4 681

JOHN BARRY (S .F .) K-n^ v RATION DAVID TAM SCOTT NANKIN

Ric dzx nd Env . SF Bay ChapterPACE S o lid C a li fo m in a n r

A c ti o n 566-0 886 S ie r r a Clu b t e s t e Com. A g a in st W aste

843-4 833 893-2 178 (4 08 ) 295-5 650
Air Conservation

I—

Council

of

Northern

California

A

Coordinating 

Information 

& Action

Croup

representing

Lung Association of Alameda County 

Lung Association of Contra Costa Solano 

Lung Association of The Redwood Empire 

San Francisco Lung Association 

Lung Association of San Mateo County 

American Lung Association of 

Santa Clara-San Benito Counties 

California Lung Association

June 30, 1978

Hon orable Leo J. Ryan, Chairman 

House Subcommittee on the Environme nt, Energy 

Natural Resources

Room B-371B

Rayburn House O ffic e B uild in g 

Wa shington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Ryan:

o

The American Lung Ass ociatio n as a health org aniz ation Is^d eeply concerned about 

the progress made, toward the atta in m en t and maintenance o f the prim ary a ir 

. q u a li ty sta ndard s se t to p ro te ct p ub lic health. Subst ant ial tim e and e ffo r t has 

gone in to the development o f the Environme ntal Management Plan (EMP) and its 

component, the A ir Q ualit y Maintenance Plan (AQMP). The Lung Ass ociatio n 

a f f ilia te s in the San Fran cis co Bay Area have expressed th e ir appre cia tion fo r 

the opport unity to p a rti c ip a te on the Enviro nm ental Management Task Force (EMTF) 

and the A ir Q ualtiy Maintenance Plan -T ec hn ical Adv isor y Committee. The fo llo w in g 

conments are presented fo r yo ur co nsi dera tion re ga rding ou r involv em ent on the 

EMTF and the development o f the AQMP.

The EMTF had o vera ll re s p o n s ib il it y fo r the EMP development. The EMTF membership 

ro s te r was developed to in clude broad re pre se nta tion from lo cal government as 

w ell as.s pecial in te re s t groups. However, we would reconmend fu tu re plan ning 

bodie s include gre ate r c it iz e n re pre se nta tion in an attempt to inc reas e public 

acceptance o f environme ntal plann ing.

A major c rit ic is m o f the EMP plan nin g process is th a t the EMTF was not allowed 

s u ffic ie n t tim e to revie w and assess th e proposed co ntrol str a te g ie s rega rding 

th e ir effectiveness and as so ciated socia l and economic impacts . We fe el an 

adequate tim eta ble was develo ped. However, majo r delays were caused by in te rn a l 

problems re la te d to the Memorandum o f Understandin g between the lea d agency and 

su pp ortin g agencie s. Th is in te rfe rr e d w ith the e arl y c o lle c ti o n o f s u ffic ie n t 

and ac cu rate data thereby de laying developm ent o f the contr ol str a te g ie s and 

th e ir discu ss io n by the EMTF. Th is need no t be the case na tio nw ide.

A fu rth e r c rit ic is m o f the AQMP is re la te d to the co st to in dustr y in implem enting 

va rious contr ol s tr a te g ie s. Altho ugh the se have been exaggerated in many area s, 

no one can deny th a t p o ll u ti o n contr ol w ill co st money. The p oin t to remember 

however, is the co st o f co ntinuin g to p o ll u te . Two he alth econom ists, Lave and 

Ses kin, es tim ated th a t 25% o f the cost o f a ll sic kness and death due to 

Please address rorres po nd en te in care of : CALIFORNIA s t LUNG ASSOCIATION 424 R ix fc lo ti Way. Oakland. CA 941,21

(4lr

,>6M>-17TO
215

re sp ira to ry disease could be saved by a 50% abatement in a ir pollu tion leve ls 

in major urban areas. A ir pollu tion now costs Americans at leas t $10 b il li o n 

a year in health expenses, and th at figure may increase even i f a ir quality 

standards are met.

A dditio nally i t is often asse rted th at environmental management programs cause 

unemployment. A re po rt from the Presiden t's Council on Environmental Qua lity, 

"Environmental Programs and Employment," (A p ril, 1975) shows th at combined 

spending over the ten -ye ar period 1974-83 is expected to exceed $200 b il li o n .

CEQ Chairman Russel Peterson poin ted out th at the Bureau of Labor S ta tistics 

estim ated th at each $1 b il li o n spent fo r pollu tion control tra ns lates in to 

about 67,000 job s. This means th at pollu tion control expenditures resulted in 

more th at 1 m illio n jobs in 1975 and th is number w il l increase several fo ld over 

the next decade.

Of grea test concern to the Lung Assoc iation is th at the AQMP as approved by the 

General Assembly of the Assoc iation o f Bay Area Governments does not provide 

fo r attainment or maintenance of the a ir qu ality standards as require d by the 

Clean A ir Act. The AQMP addresses only one pollu ta nt—photochemical oxida nt.

With the de letio n of the tra ns po rta tio n co ntrol and land use measures from the 

d ra ft document, the Plan w il l not show numerical demonstration of atta inm ent fo r 

th is standard and fu rt her w il l not qualify fo r an extension of the deadline from 

1982 to 1987. Additio nally with the de letio n of the te xt fo r the Continuing 

Planning Process, i t is unclear how the AQMP w il l address the attainment of the 

a ir quality standards fo r carbon monoxide and to ta l suspended partic ula te or 

maintain the a ir q u ality standard fo r sulfu r diox ide. With th is in mind, we 

do not view the AQMP to be effective.

Our fi n a l comments are in reference to pu blic partic ip ation. The Lung Associatio n 

has had many years o f experience in citiz e n involvement in a ff a ir s re la ting to 

lung disease and he alth. We o ff e r the follo wing suggestions fo r citiz en in ­

volvement in a ir qualtiy and environmental management planning: 1) alloca te 

funds to enable citiz en groups to conduct cormiunity education programs to ensure meaningful community input; 2) conduct a vigorous education program on the 

ro le of the citiz en in environmental planning ; and 3) give adequate no tic e of 

pending po lic y or re gu altio n re la ting to environmental plan ning.

In conclusion the Lung Association urges th at a ir quality and environmental 

planning be cha rac terized by a continuance and improvement of the measures to 

prevent an increase in a ir pollu tion and it s de leterio us effect on the health of 

our citiz ens, p a rt ic u la rl y with regard to re sp ira to ry disease. We believe th is is 

ju s ti fi e d on the basis of a co st-b en ef it analy sis as well as common sense basis.

We oppose any re laxa tio n o f compliance schedules, standards or standard-making 

procedures in the enforcement o f the Clean A ir Act and any steps th at would 

sacrifice a ir qualtiy or any environmental goals.

Fran Du Melle 

S ta ff Dire ctor
216

J?/At'iZ f f a )(lfa> U J ^ W A W y ^ £ p.

l J O W » v (fa.

3 H ^ & & & dfa.

W *

■^jy £ ) M<P

JUL 7 >976

a ^ $ & 6 f a » J ^ f a * f a — f a f a .

Ji^« ,v VeZfa f a ( L S f a f a h f a ' ? ^ . i ^ ^ J . ' ^ f a x ' M f a }

3 /fa fa , I f 7# fa vS C " j / ■

/n * { jh tfa /ti~er>ycfaJ srn-ytsHsU [S fatfafa Jc%faa<>ti><fa>

'& ■ & * (

2^*u>» ysyffa^. £ A - X ^ W ^ 

fa fa &h fa yf afa fa ' J?fafa '<ifafa! ,ifa&cjtfayf at fafatfah> 'Hut

J b f a f a . ^ J f a f a y f - /b'tdhfafah f i / fa fa c( fa/y y///f afa

Qfa /faz,

'faCo Cerufafau^ A"*'’*' safaf ^tA rt^ ' '<1'

n

'f a / f a f a j/ ^f-

/ M C tf a f jfafa - fafapfa fa

. / f a e ^ . > , p f a j f a ^ f f a f a f a f a

^ f a f a

■A fa ( k -/ fa fa ? (faiyfai. x fa ff ifa f a t t f a f a f a u ^ faii,^

aC(fa^uyi ynyfafa, fa f a &yi~ / c ^ a y fafa/ut /ru xyfa yfafafa-faffa

fafafa' fa ^'J 'd fa jfa fafafadfa s n f a T a / f a f a f a _r .-
217

tk tk 4 a ; &nJ?u <* t'fib & v ^ t ? # * /£ y o i^ u u ^ a

a t a i e ^ -Z& { /,& # ., / n Z f

' M j t .Z n fa r L o b r J 'M X ' f a t u t * , M ^ i ' f w Z &

a ^ 

d z t i ^ ,

" p u t f i x t f d t a A j^- /

'TM ^ '%*- / I 'd L f a ' ^ a f a

-f/,.. ‘- s i / ( t a f a t a t j t c f a f a ?

- ^ ( - f ^ t

a

0

’' {^ vr /t^d -c t t b dfa&c1

 stv& afa f a z c ^ f

4 " i $ A 't&fr' s & b t •/&"$ &*C'~&v COsfrt< -ctt'r'^

a ^ a/i£<L' f a ^ n f a & U 'f a t ' tffa lC Z'

< ^ a fa y o z z ^ x ^ • t s ' ^ v i - ' n y /‘fa tr t u r f s m a f a

OHcM -tte-bv f a - Q s a .n a ^ c ' f a z d f a k r f a f a ^ f a n , t f a f a f a ^~&tx_

sr'-'S'f-a / f a t f t ' g S z-t' h ^ 'J a ^ n ^ , •pO.S'fa <{,1$

/ r f a /u tl L -f az yKu'nZ d& w z^t^i/ tfd u t b s '3 'v ~n^< fa t£ t^ -Zcc’/.m /^ J(tfa L

C/u-rnA;

 9 t / r f a fa l- .

f f i f a a tf a lA a t* t f a f a ^ A ^ ij- > Q& f a fa fa j

/vf a ~ /tA,

'^

t

f a t a - ' t 'i^-ttA ^i o u k ^ - ix a-os f a

fa f. fa z £ - , ■'fetc&sl 'tjtu. #< vfa fa fa fa n fa re * . t

f a ^ , £ f a f a f a f a f a f a t

J 4 3 n j J ^ » f a * "

f a ' * W Z^v

ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMI TTEE

HOUSE OF REPRES ENTATIVES, U. S. CONGRESS

June 23, 1978

Test imony of Dianne Feinstein

President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors

Chairman, ABAG Environmental Management Task Force

When I was first asked to head the Environmental Mana gemen t Task Force 

I was indeed skeptical about the potential for success in this project.

The project, of course, was that ABAG, essenti ally a voluntar y o rganization of cities and counties, would prepare a compr ehens ive environmental 

plan, draft it and have it approved by over 100 Bay Area local gove rnme nt s— all within two years. To me that did n't sound like the ingredients 

of success. Now that it's been done, I can say it's been one of my most 

rewarding political experiences.

The preparation of the plan showed th at -g iv en the right circumstances — 

a plan of action can be worked out among envir onment alists, labor, business 

and elected officials. Like all political decisions it must rely on a 

willin gness of va rious interests to give up some part of their agenda to 

accompl ish some common good. Before this grant was available there did 

not exist a political forum to work out the agreements. The 208 program 

made possible the Environmental Management Tas k Force. This forum proved

instrumental; with out it, wi thou t labor, business and environmental

. V-—

interests as serious member s of the task force, there wo uld have been no 

locally agreed upon plan.
220

The second point I'd like to make is that local governments--even knowing 

the plan woul d have the force of law once adopted by EPA— had to be c onvinced that the ir participation would make a difference. A lot of dis ­

cussion and time went into convincing State and Federal officials that 

after cities and counties approved the plan, EPA and the State agencies 1

would not make arbitrary changes. We have their word on th is— but that 

part of the proc ess remains. But we remain optimistic. Your committee 

should knot? though that the law does not prevent EPA or the State from 

changing the plan with out first referring it back to local governments for 

their concurrence.

A third point I wish to make is that this experience demonstrates that 

_ environmental planning can be done by local governments; but the key to its -

usefulness is that it be done in a compre hensi ve manner. The integrated 

approa ch— water, air, solid waste- gave us a chance for example to find out how 

water projects affect air quality. But it did more than that. It provided 

citizens with comprehe nsive information on what it would take to clean up 

the envi ronment in the Bay Area. The task force insisted on a high level 

of citizen involv ement throughout the process.. It wasn 't surprising to 

find that citizen s were not especia lly concerned about this project until 

the plan d raft was released. Once the plan was published last year in 

December, citizen response changed dramatically. Over 15,000 people 

attended worksho ps, conferences and hearings on the plan. ABAG received 

over 1,600 pages of written co mments from citizens, special districts, and 

local governments. ' Many special interest organizations hired full-time 

staffs to monitor progress on the plan. And during the local approval 

process, the EMP received widespread newspaper and TV coverage. I might 

add that, on occasion , the media's high interest in the plan produced an 

overzealous news presentation.
221

Beside better c it iz e n involvem ent, the in te gr at ed approach enabled de cis ion 

makers to understand the to ta l cost of environmen tal management; to know 

th at surface ru n off can be controlle d by str eet clea ning (a ll i t takes is 

money); th at the remaining San Francisco Bay water p o llu tio n problems are 

complex and d o n't lend themselves to easy solu tio n; th at land use management 

won 't produce dra matic changes in a ir q u a lity over a sh or t tim e; th at 

re -introducin g s h e llfi s h in g in the Bay is not fi n a n c ia ll y out of reach; 

th a t a moderate amount o f water conserv ation can keep capital costs down 

fo r water sup ply pro je ct s but not ne ce ss ar ily fo r water qu a lity pro je cts .

The integrated approach did one othe r impo rta nt th in g. I t demonstrated 

th a t the sin gle purpose approach—that iSjdoing a ir q u a lity planning 

independently from othe r planning co ns ider at ions —is re a lly not acceptable 

in the fu tu re . This is a very importa nt poin t. A region al plan is needed 

to se t a general course o f ac tio n fo r cle an ing up the environm ent. But 

th at plan cannot answer the question of how to lite r a lly balance en viron ­

mental ob jectives with economic and so cial co ns ider at ions . I t can be 

done only on a pro je ct-by-p ro je ct ba sis. You can have the most a rti c u la te , 

elaborate plan in the co un try, but you must s t i l l apply i t to each circumstance as i t arises. For major pr ojec ts of region al signific ance a formal 

polic y body is needed to guide the re gul at or y agencies on how to proceed 

with respect to each pro je ct. I f a major in du st ry wants to loca te in the 

Bay Area and i t is deemed so cia lly and econom ically be ne ficia l, the re should 

be a means fo r de cid ing which of our ob je ct ives should take precedence and 

at what price. Yo u-don't have to be involve d in planning long to know 

th at ob je ctives w ill always be in c o n fli c t because any de cis ion by the 

government w ill have a negative impact on someone. These kinds of c o n flic ts 

must be resolved by a fo rm ally designated body. Resolving c o n fl ic ts demands

35 -395 0 - 79 - 15
222

a comprehensive se t of fa cts and inte gr at ed pla nning . We did not solve th is 

dilemma in our f ir s t round o f 208 environmen tal pla nning . But i t is a 

poin t we must ev ent ua lly reach.

I t 's my firm co nvict io n th at the procedures we used here can provide' a 

na tio na l model. I fe el th at your subconmittee should do whatever i t can 

to fo rm al ly recognize in Federal law lo ca l governments' re sp o n sib ility fo r 

pre paring a comprehensive environmental management plan and fo r es ta blishing 

procedures fo r de cid ing the proper balance among economic, socia l, and 

environmental needs.

Balancing economic and environmental ac tio ns is a very complex and 

d iff ic u lt m at te r, fra ug ht with lo ca l nuances. The Federal government should 

fo ste r procedures and programs th at advance loca l understanding of the issues 

and permit de cis ions to be made lo c a lly on the kind of reg ion citiz ens want,

F in a lly le t me say th at before we st arted th is process the pu bl ic knew 

very l i t t l e about the Federal Water P ollution Control Act or the Clean A ir 

Ac t. The EMP cle a rl y demonstrated what i t would take to ca rry out these 

laws. I must say th at ABA6 and it s repres en tativ es took a grea t deal of 

heated publ ic re action, especia lly on ways to co nt rol a ir p o llu tio n . But 

the heat and the debate re su lte d in a pla n ta ilore d to th is metropo litan 

area. Under those circumstances and w ith the kind of in it ia l re actio n 

th at needed debate among loca l o ffic ia ls and those they repres en t, I doubt 

very much th a t a Federal or State agency could have prepared a plan endorsed 

by loca l governments— a plan th at now has a good chance of being ca rrie d 

ou t.
223

June 30, 1978

The Hon. Leo J. Ryan, Chairman —

Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, 

and Natural Resources

House of Representatives

Rayburn House Office Bldg., Rm. B-371-B

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Ryan:

During your recent two day hearing on the ABAG Environmental Management Plan 

you indicated you would keep the record open to receive additional comments 

on the Plan and related issues. We would like to take advantage of this extension to augment our testimony with some additional recommendations which 

focus on the federal framework within which the ABAG effort had to be formulated— the Clean Air Act. We hope that the report that grows out of the 

hearing will reflect the concerns we touch on in this and that eventually you 

can muster support among your colleagues to revise the Statute accordingly.

We also want to thank you for inviting us to participate in the oversight forum. 

You provided a valuable opportunity for public officials and representatives 

of concerned groups to assess the ABAG two year undertaking.

If we can be of further assistance, please-don't hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely,

Thomas 0. Merle 

Associate Director

TM/dp

Enel.

* Bay Aiea Counrll.

ablithed In 1945. Is

irivate. non-profit

janlzalion involved in

«arch and advocacy

arwawide public

licy issues such as

vironntenlal quality,

roomie vitality,

importation. and

lional planning and

vemment.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN

ARJAY MILLER

Dean

Graduate School of Business

Stanford University

IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIRMAN

ERNEST C. ARBUCKLE

Wells Fargo Bank

VICE CHAIRMEN

B. F. BIAGGINI

Chairman

Southern Pacific Company

MYRON DU BAIN

Chairman & President

Fireman s Fund

Insurance Companies

PETER E HAAS

President

Levi Strauss & Co.

RICHARD B. MADDEN

& Chief Executive Officer

Potlatch Corporation

ROBERT B. SHETTERLY

President

The Clorox Company

CHAIRS1AN. STEERING

COMMITTEE

WARREN D. CHINN

Senior Vice President

CHAIRMAN S APPOINTEES

A. W. CLAUSEN

Bank of America. NT & SA

EDMUND W. LITTLEFIELD

Chairman of the Board

Utah International Inc.

EUGENE E. TRF.FETHEN. JR.

Director Retired President

Kaiser Industries Corporation

STAFF

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ANGELO J. SIRACUSA

ASSOCIATE DIRECTORS

THOMAS O. MERLE

GREGORY A MOORE

STAFF ASSOCIATE

BRIGITTE STRAUBS
224

JDZAI

A R E A

C O U N C IL

June 30, 1978

♦

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RELATING TO THE ABAG ENVIRONMENTAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN: PROPOSED CHANGES IN CLEAN AIR ACT

Progress in Cleaning the Air

The Committee should note the significant improvement in air quality in the Bay Area 

and elsewhere as a result of pollution controls over the past several years. Attached 

are several documents from the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District which describe 

the gains made in this region. The Clean Air Act itself (Section 101 (a) (2)) does not 

recognize the improvements that have been made. As a starting point. Congress should 

recognize the substantial improvements as well as the further cleanup job that must be done.

Basic for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

Section 109 (b) (1) and (2) provide direction to the EPA administrator for setting 

NAAQS. In setting primary standards the administrator is required to protect the 

public health with an adequate margin of safety. In setting secondary standards the 

administrator must protect public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse 

effects. As a result of this direction, the administrator inevitably sets overly 

stringent s tandards. In our view Congress should direct the administrator to place 

top priority on protecting public health and welfare but also to take into account 

socio-economic side effects and feasibility of attainment in setting the standards. 

Requirements for Non-attainment Areas

In amending the Clean Air Act in 1977, Congress set up time tables for attaining the 

primary NAAQS which are impossible to achieve in some urban areas of the country (for 

example Los An gel es) . While we agree that all reasonable measures should be taken in a n attempt to meet the standards by 1982 and that an extension for oxidants a nd carbon monoxide beyond 1982 will be required in many areas, we do not agree with 1987 as a 

final deadline date. Section 107 (a) (2) should be modified to read "...not later than 

December 31, 1987 or as expeditiously as practical." EPA Assistant Administrator David Hawkins is quoted in "Air/Water Pollution Report "(copy of page attached) saying 

that 10 to 15 cities (read air basins) will still not be able to attain standards 

in 1987 even under the proposed upward revision in the oxidant/ozone standard.

The definition for Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) in the Clean Air Act is unacceptable. While stringent technology-forcing pollution controls should be required on 

new sources in non-attainment areas, economic considerations must be taken into account. The definition for LAER allows no such economic considerations.

4E BA Y AR E A CO U N C IL . INC. 3 4 8 W O R LD TR A D E C E N T E R SAN F R A N C IS C O <>4111 (415) 9 81*6 405
In certain instances, emissi on offsets or a gr owth allowance may not be available in

non-attainment areas for vitally needed new facilities. The governor of a state should

have the right after appropriate public hearings to waive the federal conditions for

allowing new sources. This waiver should be used seldom and very selectively, but

on occasion it may b e needed.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

Part C of Title I of the C lean Air Ac t dealing with PSD should be extensively modified

to deal wi th the real prob lem of concern; that is, protection of pristine wilderness

areas. Ideally, Class II and III should be eliminated from the Act. All areas outside

of and not adjacent to Cl ass I areas should only be required to attain the primary and

secondary NAAQS.

If this approach is not feasible, consideration should be given to (1, greatly increasing

the difficulty of redesignating an area from Class II to Class I, (2) expediting the

procedure for redesignating an area from Class II to Class III and (3) eliminating the

increments in Class III and requiring only attainment of primary and secondary NAAQS

in Class III areas.

The definition of "major emitting facility ” in the PSD section has caused great difficulty, primarily because of differing interpretations of the word "potential." The

Act should be changed to cl arify what is meant. 1

Additional Minor Points

In Section 107 (d) (1) (B) non-attainment should apply only to the current situation

for sulfur dioxides or particulate matter and not to a projected future situation. On

this basis several areas o f the country would be correctly classified as attainment

areas rather than non-attainment areas for these pollutants.

In Section 108 (c) the EPA administrator should be directed to update the criteria

documents on a definite time table, say every five years rather than "from time-to-time."

Our reading of Section 116 would indicate that states may not have the right to set

their own ambient air quality standards but rather can set only emission standards and

the corresponding controls. The wording in the Act should be clarified to preclude

states from setting ambient standards more rigorous than the national standards for

nationally regulated pollutants. States may need to set standards for other pollutants

of only local concern. (See attachement, also from "Air/Water Pollution Report," summarizing study of South Co ast Air Quality Management District, describing cost to industry

in Los Angeles area of meeting tougher California S02 and sulfate standards. As the Bay

Area is compelled to burn less natural gas, we will be faced with the same situation.)

Section 211 of the Act is ambiguous with regard to required testing of fuels and fuel

additives. Section 211 (a) (2) allows the EPA administrator discretion in specifying

tests for using the word "may.". However, Section 211 (e) (1) requires the administrator

to issue regulations for testing of fuels or fuel additives within one year after

enactment. In our opinion, the administrator should retain the ability to decide on

the need for tests. Otherwise the development of new fuels and fuel additives may be

precluded.
226

Ju ne 23 , 197 8

H eari ngs on ABAG EMP A ir Q u a li ty S e c ti o n

Good Morning

My name Is L arr y Sm ith. Thi s m or ni ng I am se rv in g as sp ok esman f o r 

th e C o n str u c ti o n In d u str y A s so c ia ti o n o f Sonoma C ounty , The Sonoma 

Cou nt y Bo ard o f R e a lto rs , The Sonoma Cou nt y A llia n c e , and th e 

B u il d in g T ra des C ouncil of L ak e, M en do cino , an d Sonom a C o u n ti e s.

The se g ro u p s’ mem be rship an d c o n s titu e n c ie s acco u n t fo rd a p p ro x im ate ly 

one th ir d b i l l i o n d o lla r s In ec on om ic a c t i v i t y an d p ro b ab ly a th ir d 

o f Sonom a C ounty ’ s work fo rc e .

Tho ugh some o f th e c i t i e s b e lo n g , th e Cou nt y o f Sonoma Is n o t a member 

of th e A s so c ia ti o n o f Bay Area G ov er nm en ts. Even so , ABAG has assumed 

some p la n n in g J u r is d ic tio n s in our c o u n ty . The d r a f t EMP pro pose d 

p la n n in g c o n c e p ts an d Im ple m en ta ti on p ro c ed u re s whi ch we fo und n o t 

only o f f e n s iv e , b u t In c o n tr a s t to o u r G ener al P la n s an d th e w e llb ein g of o ur p eo p le . We sp ok e lh o p p o s it io n to th e d r a f t p la n In 

g e n e ra l an d In p a r ti c u l a r to th e la n d use p ro p o sa ls In tr o d u ce d under 

th e g u is e o f en v ir o n m en ta l p r o te c tio n . We ha ve re ad In th e new s med ia 

t h a t some o f th ese pro pose d c o n tr o ls ha ve be en e li m in a te d , b u t some 

o f th e lo c a l r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s sa y t h a t w hat h as a c tu a lly o c cu rr e d Is 

si m ply a se m an ti c d e to u r. The f a c t t h a t we don’ t know f o r su re sa ys 

so m eth in g a b o u t th e q u a lity o f th e co m m unic at io ns mehhanlsm o f ABAG.

I f t h is h e a rin g p an el we re to tr a v e l to Sonoma Co un ty n e x t week w it h 

th e so le purp ose o f fin d in g o u t th e c o n te n t o f th e a i r q u a lity u f 

p o rtio n o f th e EMP, I wou ld v e n tu re to sa y t h a t you wo uld ha ve a 

d i f f i c u l t tim e fin d in g an y m a te ria ls to re vie w o r know le dgab le peo ple 

w it h whom to d is c u s s a i r q u a lity w it h beyo nd th e few r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s 

fro m th e c i t i e s t h a t do b elo n g .
227

I t I s d i f f i c u l t en ou gh f o r th e r e s id e n ts o f Sonom a Cou nt y to pla n 

f o r t h e i r own f u t u r e . The fo rm ati o n o f gr ow th ma nageme nt p la n s and 

G ener al P la n s I s a g ru e li n g p ro c e ss . We q u e sti o n th e a b i l i t y an d 

m o ti v es o f o u ts id e e n t i t l e s to p la n f o r us - as ABAG has done.

We r e a l iz e t h a t I t Is Im p era ti v e t h a t en v ir o n m en ta l p la n n in g be do ne 

In o r d e r to q u a lif y to f e d e r a l a s s is ta n c e f o r many c a p i t a l Im prov em en t 

p r o j e c ts , b u t w ou ld n o t c o p ie s o f th e g e n e ra l p la n s o f th e a re a s 

s u f f ic e In th e e v e n t t h a t ha d In c o rp o ra te d a l l th e a p p ro p ria te e le m e n ts . 

A r e g io n a l e n t i t y can be u s e f u l In s o lv in g I n t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d is p u te s 

an d e x p e d itin g c o o p e ra ti v e p r o je c ts a f f e c ti n g two o r more c o u n tie s , 

b u t, In o u r o p in io n , an endors em ent o f r e g io n a l c o n tr o l Is to r e lin q u is h 

lo c a l c o n tr o l an d p erh ap s a u th o riz e q u e s ti o n a b le ad de d la y e r s o f 

b u re a u c ra c y .

We ha ve adopte d g e n e ra l p la n s w it h th e c e n t r a l them es o f en v ir o n m en ta l 

p r o te c tio n , p r e s e r v a tio n o f a g r ic u lt u r e , c e n t r a l c i t i e s w it h I n f i l l i n g 

an d c o n ti g u o u s gro w th an d g re en b e l t s s e p a ra tin g th e c i t i e s . Our g e n e ra l 

p la n s e x p re ss th e I n te n t to a t t r a c t c le a n I n d u s tr ie s to em ploy people 

who now comm ute .

S p eakin g o f co m m ut in g.......... Perh aps o u r b a sic mes sa ge to d ay Is t h a t

we op po se an a i r q u a lity p la n n in g c o n c e p t we h e a r q u it e o f te n . Tha t 

co n ce p t co u ld be su m m ar iz ed lik e s o : " I f you ha ve re s e rv e c a p a c itie s 

In y o u r se w er p la n ts and w a te r s u p p lie s , t h a t I s an In c e n ti v e to gro w th , 

th u s yo u w ill b u ild more homes an d b u sin e sse s w hi ch w i l l b rin g more 

p eople an d more p eo p le me ans more au to m o b il e usa ge w hi ch me ans p o o re r 

a i r q u a li t y , so t h i s o r t h a t ag en cy w i l l frow n upon a p p lic a tio n s f o r 

e x p an sio n o f y o u r se w er o r w a te r f a c i l i t i e s , e t c . F u rth e r, we w jo uld 

l ik e to d is c o u ra g e a u to u sa ge now by ad d in g to b rid g e t o l l s and put 

p a rk in g m ete rs In sh oppin g c e n te r s , e t c . We ha ve s e v e ra l c o n f li c t s 

w it h t h i s ty pe o f p e r s p e c tiv e . High q u a lity a i r to b re a th e Is a
228

b a s ic n eed . So I s s h e l te r . G ov er nm en ta l a g e n c ie s serv e as th e 

In str u m en t o u r s o c ie ty u se s to p r o te c t a i r q u a lity . Ih e p r iv a te 

s e c to r c o n s tr u c tio n In d u str y se rv e s a s th e In str u m en t th ro u g h w hi ch 

o u r s o c ie ty house s I t s p e o p le . Due t o a v a r ie ty of r e a s o n s , th e 

c o n s tr u c tio n In d u str y Is f a r behin d sch ed u le In m eeti ng th e need s 

f o r h o u sin g . A cc ord in g to th e Urban S tra te g y f o r C a lif o r n ia , th e 

S t a t e ’ s p la n n in g do cu m en t, we ne ed a q u a r te r m il lio n h o u si n g u n its 

b u i l t e v ery y e a r be tw ee n now and 1982 In a d d it io n to m a in ta in in g and 

r e h a b i l i t a t i n g th e e x is tin g sto c k to m ee t th e h o u si n g n eeds of 

C a lif o r n ia n s . To mee t th e se n e e d s, se w er an d w a te r an d tr a n s p o r ta tio n 

f a c l l l t e s ad eq u ate to se rv e t h is new p o p u la ti o n Is a m ust . Ih e 

c o n f l i c t sh o u ld be obvio us by now. Wh at we pro pose Is t h a t I f a u to 

e m is sio n s a re se rv in g as J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r f u r t h e r la n d use r e g u la tio n , 

n f e d e r a l, s t a t e , and lo c a l govern m enta l fo cu s ch an ge I s w a rra n te d .

I t makes se n se to u s t h a t I f a u to em m is sl ons a re a pro ble m , an d we 

ac kn ow le dg e t h a t th ey a r e , I t wo uld be a p p ro p ria te to g e t a t th e

s o u r c e ---- D e tr o it. C le an up th e a u to s b e fo re th ey h i t th e s tr e e t '.

Hou se s don’ t c r e a te a i r p o llu tio n . To em phas iz e th e Im port ance o f 

th e ec onom ic s I r e f e r r e d to e a r l i e r , I w ill sh a re some d a ta whi ch 

I b e li e v e em phasi ze s th e need f o r l e s s , n o t more r e g u la tio n on th e 

h o u sin g I n d u s try .
> • » «

“A Silent Revolution”

Not long ago, a W alke r and Lee consu mer surv ey revealed t ha t only 16 perc ent of t he C alifornians polle d felt tha t the "p rimary" cau se for in ­ creasin g hom e prices was attr ibu tab le to "gov ernm ent red tape and requ irem ents." Most (61 perc ent) believed the mai n reason for the 

ballooni ng price of n ew housing was caused by the increa se in wages, followe d closely (56 perce nt) by the belief tha t the cost of m ateri als was 

the pr incipal co ntri butor. Yet, a n exh austive stud y cond ucte d by the Constructi on Industry

Research Board re veale d th e follo wing facts:

1. Th e price of a typica l hom e i n California (1,500 square feet) climbed 

from abo ut $31 ,00 0 i n 1970 to ju st over $59 ,000 six years l ate r — an 

increase of 88 .2 p ercent.

1. Th e largest single con trib uting factor to the massive increa se was the skyr ocke ting cost of fina ncin g the cons truc tion of t he hom e. It s hot 5 up 145.1 perc ent in six years. Why? First, infla tion led to a far tighter 

mon ey ma rket . Second, the mo untin g delays prior to constru ctio n being starte d — delays caused by increa sed gov ernm ent regulation — great ly len gthene d the fina ncin g period and with it, overall financing 

costs.

3. Th e nex t largest contr ibu tin g factor to the soaring price of a new hom e was wh at is t erm ed "imp roved land costs." This inclu des those . recently added steps, p roced ures and oth er m easures the gov ernme nt now requires the b uild er to take prior to allowing h im to drive the \ first nail. The se costs sho t up 124.2 perc ent in six years. Th e cirb

stud y also not ed tha t "th e cost of governm enta l regula tions, pro­ cedures, envir onme nta l review and land use restrictions can am oun t to 12 percen t of the hom e price and, in some cases (part icula rly wh ere excessive delays occu r), gov ernm enta lly indu ced costs will 

comprise as mu ch as 20 p erce nt of t he h ome price." Specifically, w ith a " typic al" Cali forn ia h ome — th at is, one costing abo ut $59 ,10 0 — th e "go vern men tally induced" cost of t ha t house's 

overal l price tag is just over $7,0 00.

4. Th e study also show ed tha t, cont rary to wh at California consu mer s believe, the co mb ined increase in the cost of lab or a nd materials for a n ew house, while rising 65 perc ent in six years, was now actually less a par t of the home 's total cost tha n before. In fact, in 1970, \ labo r a nd m ater ials mad e up abo ut 56 p erce nt of the to tal cost of a typica l hom e in Califo rnia. In 1976, those two factors, labor a nd mat erials, am ounte d to 49 percen t of the total cost of t he same home .

5. And finally, the builder's percentage of p rofit on the total cost of the 

\ new h ome dropped in six ye ars from abo ut 7 to 6.5 percent.

So w hat Californians believe are the ma in causes and w hat are, in 

fact, the real causes for t he soarin g price o f a n ew hom e are q uite d if­ fe re nt . A nd this is troubl ing. For rece nt his tory suggests th at Calif ornia ns, 

feeling the blam e for rising prices of new hom es and oth er kind s of con stru ctio n rests squarely with the con stru ctio n indu stry itself, may turn to the ir legislators and the gov ernm ent and demand they take an even firmer h and to correc t the situ atio n. In oth er words, frustrated , angry a nd uninforme d, Californians may push for an even grea ter degree 

of gov ernm ent regulation of the con stru ctio n industry. Professor Mu rray L. W eiden baum , o ne of t he n ati on 's leading experts on gov ernm ent regulation, summarized the growing dilemma this way:

"Th is is a sile nt revo lution in man y ways. It is n ot led by a ho st of noisy trum pete rs. It is n ot int ent ion al or even n oticeable to th e day-today observer. But tha t does no t alte r its deep impac t.

"Th e c hange th at our indu stri al econo my is un derg oing mu st be u nd er­ stood as a bur eaucrat ic rev olut ion, no t a conspiracy. Wh at is invo lved are the lawful efforts of gove rnm enta l civil s erva nts going abo ut the ir routine and as signed tasks, tasks whose purpo ses are h ard to deny. Who, afte r all, is oppo sed to c leaning up the env iro nm ent ? O r e nhanc ing job 

safety? O r im prov ing consu mer produ cts?

"Yet, if we step back and assess th e long-t erm imp act on the p rivat e tO enterpr ise syste m of the hos t of gov ernm ent inspection s, regula tions, review s and subsidies, we find that the fun dam ent al business-gov ern­ me nt relationship is being changed (and tha t) incre asing ly the govern­ me nt is pa rtic ipa ting in a nd often cont roll ing the int ern al decisions of business, the kind s of decision s that lie at the h ea rt of the c apita list 

system."
230

CITY H AL L • 170 SANTA M AR IA AVEN UE

MAYOR

Nick Gust

MAYOR PRO TEM

Stan ley M Farber

CO UNCIL

Mark Savage

Ellie Mc Gu ire

Fred Ho wa rd

CITY MAN AG ER

Do nald G. Weidn er

June 27, 1978

The Honorable Leo Ryan, Chairman

Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and 

Natural Resources

Room B371

Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Ryan:

Pacifica regrets not having the opportunity to make a presentation on ABAG's Environmental Management Plan (EMP) during your subcommittee's hearings in San Francisco on June 23 and 24. Please enter this letter in your committee's formal record as our city's official position concerning the plan.

The Pacifica City Council and its staff have consistently opposed the EMP for the Bay Area because it is premised on unrealistic and unattainable Federal standards. We are also strongly concerned that Congress' environmental legis­ lation and adoption of the EMP will allow Federal and State enforcement agencies too much intrusion into and control over the day-to-day affairs and operations of local communities.

Concerning our first point, to our knowledge no satisfactory evidence has ever been produced to support the arbitrary and unreasonably strict technical requirements for clean air and clean water demanded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in ABAG's plan. In the same vein, we have never been shown any evidence that present air quality in the Bay Area threatens the public's health. Given all the strict and effective environmental controls now covering the Bay Area, we feel that decisions on additional air and water pollution control are no longer appropriate for technical decision-ma) ;rs in the Federal bureaucracies to make. We believe these decisions h ave no w reached the level of social and economic value judgments which must b e made by the affected public and elected officials directly accountable to them. The objec­ tives and regulations in the EMP were not chosen by the people of the Bay Area. They were imposed in an arbitrary and unjustified way by the sponsoring agency, the EPA. We feel these objectives were subjectively selected to satisfy non- scientific programs. They appear to be aimed more toward the "reformation" of urban behavior rather than scientifically justified clear air and water standards.

Path of Portola 1769—San Francisco Bay Discovery Site
231

Our City Council and staff, with many others in the Bay Area, are convinced 

that there is no way of accomplishing all the Federal clean air and water 

standards without imposing severe growth limitations and other social and 

economic r strictions on residents, commerce, and all public institutions 

operating in the Bay Area. We are equally convinced that when a majority 

of the voters and taxpayers realize the social an d economic costs and 

restrictions connected with the H4P, they will no longer tolerate its 

imposition upon them. There has just been a vivid demonstration in California in the form of Proposition 13 showing what the voters can do when 

they decide they have been over-taxed, over-regulated, and over-legislated.

There is also great concern in Pacifica and other parts of the Bay Area about 

the new opportunities for Federal and State agencies to further intrude into 

local government operations and regulate community affairs. The EPA and some 

State agencies have already expressed strong dissatisfaction with the EMP as 

adopted by ABAG. They have issued threats to rewrite portions of the plan and 

issue sanctions and financial penalties on local agencies which do not conform 

to their dictates. The Pacifica City Council submits that distant Federal 

bureaucracies, isolated by layers of procedures a nd paperwork, do not know 

anything about what it really takes to operate local government. We believe 

their bureaucratic behavior will be extremely disruptive to the efficiency and 

democratic processes in our cities. There are already many examples of arbitrary and senseless restrictions on local communities because they failed to 

meet irrational rules and regulations imposed by Federal and State agencies.

If Congress' environmental laws and EPA regulations imposing them on local 

government are allowed to continue on their present course, we fear a final 

erosion of local government's autonomy and effectiveness. We do not believe 

Congress intended this to happen and we urge your subcommittee to critically 

review both Congress' intent when adopting clean air and water legislation and 

the EPA's enforcement posture as they relate to the real issues. We do not 

believe the creation of a pristine environment was meant to replace local 

autonomy and social and economic balances in the country's urban areas.

Nick Gust, Mayor

cc: City Council

Association of Bay Area Governments 

Press

bn
232

Testimony of Frank Wilts, San Leandro California Manufacturers'

Associati on Before the Sub commit tee of the United States House

of Represen tatives Committ ee on Government Onerations on the

Matt er of the San Francisco Bay Region Environmental Plan on

June 24, 1978.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the .Subcommittee, m y name is Frank Wilts.

I appe ar as a respre sentative of the San Leandro Ma nufacturers'

Association, having served as a Direct or of that organization for the past *

three years. I appreci ate the invitation extended to me to appear before

the Sub commit tee and for the opportunit y to share with you our views on

the San Francisco Bay Area Environmental Management Plan. •

Before responding to the four basic questions posed by your letter of

invitation, let me take a brief momen t to tell you about the San Leandro

Manufacturers' Association. This organiza tion has served the San Leandro

business communi ty for twenty-five years. It speaks in behal f of

approxmat ely eleven hun dred operating plants and dist ribution centers

who employ in the neighborhood of twenty-five thousand residents of the

Bay Area. The largest employers in the San Leandro business community

are Caterpi llar Tractor Co. and Western Electric.

The M anufacturers' Associa tion has had more than a passing interest in,

and knowledge of, the E nvironmental Management Plan. Past presidents

and directors of the organization have served in the past and continue to

serve on Citizens' Adviso ry Committees concerned with the various sections

of the Plan, and ther efore helped to influence it in its development.

Members attended numerous meetin gs of the Environmental Management Task

Force which formulated the Plan and, through oral and written communication,

informed our Representatives on that Task Force of our position with

respect to the Plan. When summaries of the Plan were made available to

the Bay Area community, copies were sent to each mem ber company of the

Association, which provided the foundation for members hip discussion and
formulation of an Ass ociat ion position which was communic ated to the 

Task Force and to our repre sentati ves in the community. My testimony 

before you today is based upon that particip ation and represents the 

conclu sions reached by the Association.

Mr. Chairman, y our letter to me asked that I give the Committee the 

benefit of my advice and recommendat ions concerning the Environmental 

Manag emen t Plan. You asked speci fical ly that I make an assessment of 

the P lan from the point of view of the business community. You asked 

whethe r I believe the business conmu nity of the area has been, or will 

be, p laced in a disa dvant ageou s compe titive position and whet her I 

believ e that the Federal Environmental Control Requirements should 

be changed, and finally, how t hese requirements should be changed.

I will address mysel f to those questio ns in the order just outlined.

With regard to my a ssess ment of the Plan - Let me lead off by saying 

that I agree with the need for a Plan to control and maintain a 

reasonable living and wor king environme nt and I believ e that the 

Environmental Mana gemen t Plan for the Bay area is a step along the 

road toward formulation of an acceptable Plan, but it is not now 

acceptable f or the following reasons:

FIRST, its most seri ous defic ienc y is that it will produce adverse 

social and economic effects in its att empt to meet existing environmental 

standards. Authors of t he Plan admit that basic industries might not be 

able to locate in the Bay Area. We cannot all be in service jobs to one 

another, or on a Federall y financ ed program. Basic profit producing 

industri es m ust be expa nded in the area, not s queezed out. The 

San Franci sco Bay Regional Plan for the years 1970 to 1990, authored by 

the As socia tion of Bay Area Gov ernme nts, projects a population growth 

from 1970 to 1990 of in excess of two and one-hal f million people. 

Projection s for manu factu ring employment alone call for an increase of 

one hundre d and s event y-fiv e thousand jobs in that same period. This 

is the real wor ld w hich the P lan mu st accomodate.
234

SECONDLY, i t incorporates unnecessarily s tr ic t standards reg ard ing 

a ir emissions - even more strin gent than the re ce nt ly revis ed Federal 

Re gulation s. Here are two examples: With respect to suspended 

pa rt ic u la te s, the 24 hour na tio na l standard is 260 grams per cub ic 

meter. The C alifo rn ia standard is 100 grams. With respect to sulphur 

dio xid e, using the 24 hour time pe riod an al ys is, the Federal Standard 

is 0.14 pa rts per m il lio n , while the C alifo rn ia Standard is 0.05 

pa rts per m il lio n .

THIRDLY, i t c a lls fo r measures th at are very costly and are on ly 

m ar ginally eff e ctive in reducing po llu ta nts . While many of these were 

in Land Use and Tran sp ortatio n Con trols, which were e ith e r mo dified 

or dropped from the Pla n, many areas s t i l l remain and we are concerned 

th at the y may s t i l l be inc orpo rated at a fu tu re time in an atte mpt to 

comply w ith u n re a lis ti c a lly s tr ic t standards.

FINALY, i t provides fo r s t i l l fu rt h e r laye rs o f bureacracy which 

adm in istrate , analyze, rev iew , survey, mon ito r, re por t and promulgate 

additio nal regu latio ns which are not on ly more costly to in dustry and 

a ll c it iz e n s , but unduly comp licate the process of so re ly needed 

in d u s tr ia l and commercial growth.

With regard to whether the Bay Area business community has been, or w il l 

be, placed in a disadvantageous co mpe titive po sitio n, our answer is a 

"y es ".

Its most d ir e c t adverse e ff e c t is th at i t causes increased co st of 

prod uc tio n and of doing business in ge ne ral, generated by the unnecessary 

expenditures to meet the various a ir , water and waste discharge 

re gula tions.

The ba sic in dustrie s of o il, chemical and stee l making, who eith er canot 

expand or cannot operate at pre sen t le vels , or who would li k e to locate 

in the Bay Area and cannot, are themselves disadvantaged - as we ll as
235

the users of th eir basic products who now must go elsewhere to obtain 

these basic products, usually at increased costs.

As the in dust rial base shrinks the tax burden increases on those 

indu strie s remaining, causing an even fu rther de terio ra tio n of th eir 

cost competitiveness.

We in the Bay Area lose our com petitive po sitio n with in our own sta te, 

w ith in the country and, fi n a ll y , with our world wide competitors. Our 

intern at iona l trade balance is fu rther deter iorate d.

Your le tt e r asks whether we believe the Federal Environmental Control 

requirements should be changed. Again, our answer is affirm ativ e. Let 

me assure you, however, that we do not recommend that Federal 

Regulations be abolished .. We understand that when Federal Regulations 

were passed and environmental standards were se t, the underlying concern 

was protec tio n of the public health.

We be lieve , however, that in the time that has elapsed since the 

promulgation of the f ir s t Regulations, a gre ater in sight has been gained 

as to what levels are in jurious to health and to what degree they are 

in ju rious. We believe we should make use of th is informatio n to more 

ca re fu lly and in te llig e n tl y weigh the benefits of a cleaner environment 

against the adverse soc ial and economic impact of current regulations.

We should remove and str ik e in it s entire ty the concept of a "no ris k 

philosophy" in our Regulation polic y, which in turn generates the absurd 

"no growth" attitude in the face of the real world of population growth 

th at we mentioned ea rly in our testim ony.

Having ind icated th at we believe that environmental control requirements 

should be changed, le t me b ri e fl y ou tline how we think th is change should 

be made: -
236

FIRST, the ba sic Standards should be reviewed in the li g h t of the newly 

developed info rm at io n and relax ed to the degree th at i t is deemed 

ju s tif ia b le .

SECONDLY, Sta te , na tio na l and lo ca l agencies should be pr ohi bite d 

from sett in g even s tric te r standards than are set at the na tio na l 

le v e l.

THIRDLY, Tim etables fo r compliance need to have the f le x ib ilit y to 

accommodate those more d iff ic u lt po llu ta n t areas w ithin our na tio n.

Reasonable tim etab les based on well defined plans which do not produce .

undue so cial and economic impact should be acceptable.

In sumnary, then , our positio n is :

The pre sen t Environmental Management Plan is unacceptable and needs 

m odific ation to reduce it s adverse economic impact.

Meantime, State and Regional Standards o f enviro nmental po llu tion should 

be ro lle d back to Federal le vels .

Federal Standards should be re-evaluated and mod ified , and tim etables 

fo r compliance should be changed from a rb it ra ry National dates to 

re gio nal-lo cal time frames which are based on meaning ful, well-d ef in ed 

plans fo r improvement.

FINALLY, we be lie ve i t is ab so lu te ly es se nt ia l th at a ll of the above 

be done w ith les s bureaucracy and fewer re gula tio ns. We should provide 

stream lined and shortened times fo r review and approval o f new in du str ie s.. 

And, most o f a ll, we need to do a ll of the above at reduced co st.

In dus try must operate on th is c rit e ria to su rv ive. Government can be 

judged by no les s a standard.

That is the end of my testimon y. May I once again thank you fo r th is 

op portunity to appear before you.
237

COALITION OF LABOR AND BUSINESS

FOuWDK M iM tf li

uied Building Industry

_ Concrete Assoc

Cast Bay

Associated General Contractor*

fast Bay

Contra Costa

Building Trade* Council

Contra Costa

Central Labor Council

Contra Costa County

Development Association

Cast Bay Construction

Cout^Asnt Ssatsre

Operating engineers Local Ma 3

Plumbers A Gas Fillers

local Mo 444

Plumbing Heating Pipmg

employer* Council

Bteamtitter* local Mo 342

Underground Contractor*

Association ■ Cast Bay

ALAMEDA fi CONTRA COSTA COU NTIES

1 0 3 0 S h a ry C o u r t. S u ite B - C o n c o rd . C a li fo rn ia - 9 4 S 2 0

4 1 5 /6 7 6 - 3 2 7 2

STATEMENT OF COLAB TO

THE ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, A ND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITT;

OF THE COM MITTEE ON GOVE RNMENTAL OPERATIONS,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Delive red by

Bonnie England, COLAB Executiv e Secretary

June 24, 1978 a t San Francisco, California

3 5 -3 9 5 0 - 79 - 16
238

COLAB has given its q ualifi ed endor sement to the 

ABAG compromise Env ironmental M ana gem ent Plan. Our one 

qual ification and t?ie mos t urgent subject requiring Congressional 

inquiry, is the "no-risk" phi los oph y embodied in the C lean Air 

Act.

Tha t "no-risk" philos oph y has led to ambient air 

quality standards which are well beyo nd the poi nt proven to be 

necessary to protect human health. If these standards produced 

no significant adverse social or economic effects, we would all 

indulge the luxur y of over ly conservative restrictions.

Such is not the case in the Bay Area or in 128 other 

"non-attainment" areas across our nation. In point of fact, 

the very plan we all have endorsed assumed a ban on m any heavy 

industries and a mod erate to slow increase in the pop ulation of 

the Bay Area. We understand that the situation m ay be far wors e 

in other areas, but we expect to be among a growing chor us asking 

if what we are bein g made to accept is really necessary.

Indeed, the entire ABAG General Assemb ly (as a part 

of the plan) has requested Congre ss to review this "no-risk" 

philosophy. In this regard it is critic al to note that ABAG 

assumed the standards as a "given" and m ost of us endorsed the 

plan despite our grav e concerns because only Congress can change 

the philosophy of the Clea n Air Act. We recognized that such 

changes are slow in coming and that the current J anua ry 1, 1979 

deadline is but six mo nths away.

No one will blame Con gress for adopting the lofty goal 

of a "no-risk" phi losophy some years ago. After all, no one 

really knew wha t such a goal would cost. However, now that we 

know the price we would think that Congress would wish to make 

appro priate adjustments.

COLAB has commissioned a paper by R. Rober t Brattain 

entitled "Ambient Air Q ual ity Standards: Goals or Gods?". The 

paper raises the issues whi ch we feel must be answered. A copy 

of this repo rt has been forwarded to the C alifornia Congressional 

delegation and is attached for this record. The most telling 

poin t made by Brat tain is that the "no-risk" philosophy embodied 

in the Clean Air Act forces a huge mar gin for error in current
standard setting without any hard medical evidence. We are 

convinced that society cannot and does not function on a 

"no-risk" basis and that we should not be made to go the 

last mile without hard evidence.

We believe that Congress and the public are ready to 

challenge the "myths" surrounding the ever-changing definition 

of "clean air".because we now know the costs of the current 

definition and because we all have been witness to all too 

many other illustrations of environmental overkill.

Thank you
240

COALITION OF LABOR AND BUSINESS

ALAMEDA & CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES

1 0 3 0 S h a r y C o u r t. S u it e B - C o n c o r d . C a lif o r n ia - 9 4 5 2 0

4 1 5 / 6 7 6 - 3 2 7 2

A p r i l 2 5 , 19 78

FOUNDER MEMBERS

Associated Building Industry

Aggregates A^Concreie Assoc

Alameda County

Building Trades Council

Associated General Contractors.

East Bay

Contra Costa

Building Trades Council

Contra Costa

Central Labor Council

Contra Costa County

Development Association

East Bay Construction

Equipment Dealers

Operating Engineers Local No 3

Plumbers A Gas Filters

Local No 444

Plumbing Heating. Piping

Employers Council

Steamfitter's Local No 342

Underground Contractors

To: Senators Cranston and Hayakawa

and the California Congressional 

Delegation

From: COLAB, by Bonnie England, Executive Secretary

Re: Federal Air Quality Standards

As yo u may be aware the Ass ocia tion of Bay Area Governments 

(ABAG) is just completing action on an air quality management 

plan for the San Franc isco Bay Area. The study and the plan 

which it produced is the first of its kind in the nation and 

provides us all (including Congress) with the first objective 

case history of what the Clean Air Act really means to 128 

"non-attainment" areas in the nation.

It is perhaps ironic that, to us, the main thing that the ABAG 

effort has established is that cleaning up the air is very 

expensive and that the federal standards may be too tough.

We are hopeful that the AB AG experience will precipitate 

further congressional inquiry into the current standards.

We are not unaware that Congress, perhaps motivated by some of 

the same concerns, ordered an independent review of the standards 

and to report back in 1982. While we commend this step we do 

not now feel it goes far enough.

Specifically, our concerns regarding the status quo are as 

follow s:

A mere review of the standards does not give us a review 

of the "no risk" philosophy embodied in the act itself; and

If, as we believe, the standards are too harsh and are 

changed, there will be no making up for the industrial growth 

lost between 1978 and 1982; and

*
241

3 . The indepen dent revi ew itself, as of our latest information, 

has not been started and h as n’t even been funded;

4 . Our support of a pla n in the Bay Area p rior to the January 1, 

1979 deadli ne man dat ed by Congress may be mi sconstrued as 

endors eme nt of the current standards.

We at the gras s roots level hope that yo u can h elp precipitate 

the kind of inquiry which needs to be done.

To help further iden tify some of the many issues whi ch need to 

» be explored in this inquiry and as added suppor t for the kind

of bro ad inquiry we desire, find enclosed a paper by Robert 

Brattain. As noted, Brattain is a former m ember of the California 

Ai r Reso urces Board and is well known in air quality circles.

The p ape r wa s comm issioned by COLAB primarily because of our 

j con cer n that th ere was no prob ing inquiry being made of the

stan dards und er whic h w e labor.

We at COLAB support "clea n air" but do not want to pay the price 

for a pri stine env ironment or other wise p articipate in an economic 

or soci al rev olution in the name of public health. We hope 

Congress and the administration would agree.

cc: Presid ent Carter 

Governor Brown 

EPA

EPA Region IX

ABA G

SCAG

Califo rni a State L egi slative Members

Califo rni a Cities and Counties

Gove rnors of 128 other "non-attainment areas"

Trad e A ssociations

Enc los ure - as stated

*
R. Robert Brattain has spent more than thirty years 

in environmental control work, both from the technical 

and regulatory viewpoints. His experience has been almost exclusively in air pollution control. He served on 

the first technical committee on Los Angeles smog starting 

in 1947; this was the c ommittee which guided the early 

work on air pollution at Stanford Research Institute. 

Following this he was a member of the advisory committees 

for two American Pe troleum Institute research projects, including the one which identified the myste ry component of 

smog now known as P AN . He was then a member of the BAAPCD 

Advisory Council, at whic h time he was one of two principal 

authors of Regulation 2. Later he was chairman of the 

Tech nical Adviso ry Committee to the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) and became a member of the first five—member 

CARB after it was reorganized along its present lines. 

Before, during and after this service on CARB he was a 

memb er of the co mmittee which selected the air pollution 

resea rch projects to be supported with state funds. From 

1971-1975 he ch aired two panels which assisted the National 

Academy of Sciences in the prepa ration of their two reports 

to Congr ess on au tomot ive air pollution. He has just 

recen tly comple ted another term as a member of the BAAPCD 

Advisory Council.
243

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS: 

GOALS OR GODS?

prepared by R. Robert Brattain

under a grant from COLAB 

The Coalition of Labor & Business, 

Alameda & Contra Cos ta Counties.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

"Truth is like the face of the Medusa. If 

you face it directly, you may be petrified 

by fright." - Garrett Hardin.

Copies of this report are available from the COLAB office while supplies last 

Write to 1030-B Shary Court, Concord, CA 94518, or telephone 415-676-3272.
PREFACE

This report recommends rejection of the Draft Air Quality 

Maintenance Plan (AQMP) prepared by ABAG. This recommendation 

is based on the fact that the objective of the plan is incorrect 

and on the belief that the need for the plan has been overstated.

The objecti ve of the plan was not chosen by the people in the 

Bay Area or by the ABAG staff; the stated objective is a requirement 

imposed by the sponsoring agency, the EPA. Consequently, this 

report is not a criticism of the staff who prepared the AQMP or of 

the work whi ch led to the draft. Actually this report agrees with 

many of the basic conclusions arrived at by the staff, although 

it states these conclusions in much blunter language. These 

conclusions were inevitable results of the constraints under which 

the AQMP was pr epared and, in particular, of the required objective 

of the plan.

The mandated objective is "to attain and maint ain the Federal 

and State ambient air quality standards (AAQS)". This is not really 

an objective, even in the minds of those who required it; rather, 

it is a means to an end. The end result of attaining the standards 

is supposed to be protection of the public health and welfare. This 

objective is legitimate, but it has been distorted to mean

"attainment of air quality whi ch represents zero risk to the 

health of the most sensitive groups of individuals, regardless 

of the social and economic costs and regardless of whether the 

same effort would have greater health benefits, if spent in 

another fashion".

The need for the plan is based on the supposition that the 

present air quality in the Bay Area is endangering health.

It is w ith this statement of need and with this distorted 

meaning of the objective that this report disagrees. The statement
245

of need is incorrect. The stated objective, as applied in managing 

public behavior, is contrary to the basic obj ective which we use 

in developing laws and rules to manage our be havior in all other 

aspects of social and economic life in order to protect the public 

health and welfare.

As the title page indicates, this report is a summary of a 

larger report which discusses in detail the reasons for the conclusions given on the next page. Copies of this Executive Summary 

and the longer report may be obtained from the COLAB office.

'I
CONCLUSIONS

There is no way of attaining and maintaining the present oxidant 

standar d in the Bay Area except limiting the growth of the Bay 

Area.

The important decisions in air pollution control are not technical, rather they are social and economic and, hence, they should 

be mad e by public officials who are directly accountable to an 

informed public,

The real cost of air quality control must be measured in terms 

of other worthwhile social goals which cannot be attained because 

of the effort spent to control air quality.

The scientific evidence on which the present standards are supposedly based and the manner in which these standards were selected do not justify either their blind acceptance as correct 

or the social and economic costs of attaining them.

The real objective of an air q uality mai ntenance plan should be 

to achiev e a degree of air c leanliness which, in balance with 

other social and economic factors, will maximize human satisfaction.

Cor oll ary . Attaining and maintaining the present air standards 

is not a true objective.

It is possible to set standards for the Bay Area which will achieve 

a reasonable balance among all of the factors which contribute 

to hu man satisfaction, including air which is healthful and 

pleas ant to breathe.

INTRODUCTION

Miscon ceptions planted in the public mind by continual repetition 

f such phrases as "clean air", "extra deaths from air pollution", 

you can't take risks or consider money when health is involved", 

return to nature as it was", "man is ruining the environment" and 

standards set to p rotect public health" have made it almost impossible
247

to discuss air pollution control in a reasonable manner. These 

phrases are either incorrect or meaningless, or both. One example 

will suffice; there are no "extra deaths"; we all get one and only 

one.

It is the purpose of this report to eliminate the more serious 

of these misco nceptions so that the public will recognize the choices 

which are available and the real costs of these choices. The public, 

which must make the final decisions, will then be in a position to 

do so. The purpose of the report will be carried out by summarizing 

the evidence leading to each of the above conclusions.

Continual repetition of the above phrases has had another effect 

which makes rational discussion difficult. These phrases tend to 

place anyone q uestioning the validity of the standards on the defensive. 

Mo one wants to be in favor of "dirty air" or of "ruining the public 

health". This report is in favor of neither.

1. There is no way of attaining and maintaining the present oxidant

standard in the Bay Area except limiting the growth of the Bay

Area.

The principal evidence supporting this conclusion comes from 

documents issued by the EMTF during and after the development of the 

Draft Air Qualit y Maintenance Plan (AQMP). This is true whether it 

is assumed that the AQMP will or will not attain the oxidant standard.

AQMP Brief No. 3 showed that the "optimistic total hydrocarbon 

reductions achievable" were significantly less than the reductions 

required to meet the oxidant standard. The September 1977 Re commendations for the Draft AQMP states on page 50

"If all the current recommendations are carried out, the region 

will almost - but not quite - meet the standards by 1985. After 

that, growth will overtake the technology of controls, and the 

air will begin to get worse again."
248

AQMP Brief No. 4 states that, even with the population in 2000 held 

to 5.4 mi llion (lower limit of the Series 3 projections), all of 

the comprehensive strategy would fall short of the required hydrocarbon red uction by 95 tons per day. A population of 6.1 million in 

2000 would increase this shortfall to 154 tons per day; i.e., reducing the popul ation by 700,000 would reduce the hydrocarbon emis ­

sions by 59 tons per day.

All of the study to this point showed that the recommendations 

of the AQMP woul d not attain and maintain the oxidant standard. This 

is corre ct; they will not. However, the EMTF was caught in an impossible situation. EPA and ARB rules require that an acceptable 

plan show attainment of the standards. Hence, the EMTF had two choices; 

one, assume a solution where none exists, or two, challenge the system 

including the EPA and ARB rules. They took the first choice. It 

was assumed that the addition of New Source Review and Indirect Source 

Review programs would increase the reduction in hydrocarbons by the 

needed amount. These two programs do not increase the probability 

of a ttaining the oxidant standard, since these programs were included 

in the comprehensive strategy when the above negative statements were 

made about the chances of meeting the standards.

The me aning of these two supposedly new, but really old, programs 

was clearl y stated by the staff. In a me morandum dated 9 November, 

the staff refers to the New Source Revie w and Indirect Source Review 

programs as "explicit growth management tools for most significant 

developments in the region", and they underlined "explicit". In 

other words, two tools specifically designed to control growth have 

been added to the plan and these tools will be used to achieve the 

required reduc tion in hydrocarbon emissions. The message is clear; 

whether these two growth-limiting tools will achieve the required 

reduction or whethe r further limitations on popu lation are necessary, 

it is impossible to attain the oxidant standard without limiting

growt h.
The discussion in this section to this point may appear to indicate 

that development of the AQMP may not have been worthwhile. Quite 

the contrary; deve lopment of the AQMP demonstrated the truth of the 

conclusion at the beginning of this section wi th a certainty which 

would have been impossible without the study wh ich led to the AQMP.

The preceding discussion is not a critici sm of the EMTF (and 

certainly not of the sta ff). It is a statement of the basic pr oblem 

which the public must recognize and solve, if it is to be solved.

The choice is clear - either insist on air quality standards which 

are compatible with other wortnwhile social and economic goals or 

limit the growth of the Bay Area, by continuing the blind acceptance 

of the present questionable standards.

2. The important decisions in air pollution control are not techni cal ,

rather they are social and economic and, hence, should be made

by public officials who are directly accountable to an informed

pub lic.

A serious m isconce ption about air pollution control is that the 

important decisions are technical. This tends to exclude the public 

from dec ision making, in spite of the window dressing. The fundamental decisions about air pollution contro l should be made by an 

informed public through democratic processes because:

- without public support the decisions will not be successfully 

implemented;

- it is the public's health and the publi c's welfare that the controls 

are supposed to protect;

- the important decisions are not technical; they are social and 

economic decisions which affect the life style of everyone;

- it is the public whic h pays for the control programs through 

giving up ot her worthwhile social goals.

The first two reasons need no supporting evidence and the fourth 

one is the subject of the next section. The m essage of the last
section was clear - limit the growth of the Bay Area or change the 

oxidant standard. Since no one is advocating letting air pollution 

go co mpletely uncontrolled, the message is really - what balance 

betwee n air quality and growth is best for the people of the Bay

Ar ea . This is a social and economic decision.

3. The real cost of air q uality control must be measured in terms

of other worthwhile social goals which cannot be attained because

of the effort spent to control air quality.

Before the public can make rational decisions about air pollution 

control they need to know the cost of control, whether the present 

standards are correct, and what the real objective of an air quality 

mana gement plan should be. This section discusses the first of 

these topics.

We can't determine the cost of controlling the environment unless we understand what the environment is. The environment is 

usually spoken of as if it were some mythical state of clean air and 

clean water in which plants and animals would lead an idyllic existence 

if man were just not present. This is nonsense. It is also common 

cust om to use the words "environment" and "ecology" as if they had 

the same meaning. This is bad english.

Environment is the aggregate of social, physical and cultural

conditions which influence the life of an individual or

commun ity .

Ecology is the study of the relation of all living things to

each other and to all non-living things in their environ ment.

The definition of environment is simple and nearly everyone 

accepts it, but few recognize its full meaning and use this meaning 

when they think about environmental control. It says that the 

environment includes all of the conditions that influence the life

of a community. This broad meaning of environment is reinforced by
251

the definition of ec ology wh ich emphasizes that all living and 

non-living things are included.

What then const itutes the Bay Area environment? It is not just 

clean air and clean water. A partial list includes air, salt water, 

jobs, fresh water, industries, wind, rain, fog, housing, sewage, 

hills, schools, freeways, museums, shopping centers, birds, airports, 

art galleries, dams, trees, newspapers, bridges, TV stations, hospitals 

cars, medical care, people who write reports, theaters, fish, and 

most important of all the interactions among all of the mentioned 

and unmentioned items.

It should be clear that the environment is a vast interconnected 

web. It has been compared to a system of intermeshed gears; if one 

of t hem is turned, all of t hem turn - some more than others, but all 

at least a little. It can also be compared to a toy baloon; if 

pushed in at one point, it bulges out at a nother point to compensate. 

This is the mo st important and fundamental characteristic of the 

environment

if a cha nge is made at one point in an environmental community

(read Bay Ar ea ), there must be a compensating change at one

or more other points in the com mun ity .

The truth of this may be more easily recogniz ed if put into the 

vernacular. It says "you can't get something for nothing" or 

"there is no free lun ch". It is riduculous that anyone would doubt 

the truth of this statement, but all ecological hypochondriacs and 

many other advocat es of strict control either pretend or insist that 

it does not apply to environmental control.

Phrases such as "money should not be conside red where health 

is involved" or "we are a'rich nation and can afford the money to 

clean the air" are used as if air pollution control were paid for 

with dollars. Dollars don't build control devices and dollars don't 

build schools and hospitals. The productive capacity of the society 

builds all these things, and that fraction of the productive capacity •
252

which is used to control air pollution can't be used to build houses, 

schools, or dams. If large amounts of capital are used to install 

BACT on plants, that same capital is no longer available to build 

other things. Each item of air pollution control is paid for by 

giving up something else such as a new car, a few washing machines, 

a new school, a few jobs, some support of the arts, or a ski trip. 

Cleaner air may be worth the sacrifice of some of these things, but 

it is naive to think that cleaner air can be paid for in any other 

fashion. It should be noted that the EMTF staff agrees that this 

is the real cost, since they stated several times that implementing 

the AQMP w ould result in some unpleasant life style changes. Some 

will say that such unpleasant tradeoffs can be avoided in our complex 

economy, but they are fooling themselves, if they believe that 

complexity suddenly makes 2 plus 2 equal 5 instead of 4 .

A recent calculation shows that the average worker in the 

United States w ill work about 2.5 days per year to pay for the 

stricter limits on exhaust emissions required by the Clean Air Act 

of 1977. The benefits of these stricter controls were estimated to 

be one less cough every 3300 years and one less headache every 

1000 years for the average person. The elderly would have one less 

aggravation of heart/lung disease every 250 years and the asthmatics 

would have one less attack every 2000 years. The numbers are startling 

but more important they illustrate the manner in which the costs of 

air pollution control should be calculated. Nothing brings this 

home more sharply than the fact that there are many people in the 

world who would accept a little more air pollution, if better food, 

clothes and housing came with it.

It is certainly the public's right to decide which of the other 

worthwhile things will be sacrificed to get cleaner air; this is a 

social and economic decision, not a technical one.

*

4 . The scientific evidence on which the present standards are

supposedly based and the manner in which these standards were
253

selected do not justify either their blind acceptance as correct

or the social and economic costs of attaining the m.

The public has been induced to believe that the ambient air 

quality standards (AAQS) were set on the basis of sound scientific 

data at levels essential for protecting publi c health and that all 

knowledgable technical people agree with the values. As a consej, quence the AAQS have been accepted as correc t and as values which

must be attained regardless of the social and economic costs. This 

is given as the fundamental justification for the AQMP. Nothing 

could be farther from the truth; one recent paper goes so far as to

refer to AAQS as a hoax and a fraud on the public.

The p resen t Fe deral standards were set in April 1971 by the EPA 

Administrator, not by a concensus of the scientific community, many 

of whose memb ers were critical then and have continued to be so. At 

that time the Administrator stated that data which clearly determined 

the level of each pollutant which is a health hazard were not available. EPA has never stated how they chose the standards, but from 

available pieces of information it seems that EPA chose to set standards

which will clean the air of the entire nation so as to protect 

the health of the most sensitive groups, regardless of their 

state of disease, and with a large enough margin of safety 

to protect these most sensitive groups even from hazards merely 

suggested by questionable data.

The social and e conomic costs of standards based on this extreme 

zero-risk philosophy were not considered.

What was the result of this method of setting standards?

- a particulate matter standard known to be incorrect, since it has 

little, if any, connection with health.

# - a hydrocarbon standard which is based on the most questionable of

data and wh ich is unneeded, since it dupl icates the oxidant AAQS.

- an ox idant standard which is based on questio nable data and is too 

strict on the basis of more recent data.

35 -395 0 - 79 - 17
The above three standards can probably not be attained in many areas 

even in the absence of man.

- a nit rogen dioxide standard b ased on a study and an analytical 

method both of which have been repudiated by EPA.

- a sulfur dioxide standard much lower than any level demonstrated 

to have a health effect.

- a carbon monoxide standard b ased on data which has been vehemently 

attacked. Furthermore, this AAQS attempts to control exposure to 

CO by cleaning the general air even though 85 to 90% of CO exposure 

comes from smoking.

It is also of note that occupationally and experimentally 

exposed individuals have not shewn health effects until concentrations 

ten or more times some of the standards have been reached. Furthermore, epidemi ologic studies, specifically designed to determine if 

a rel ationship existed between air pollution and mortality, failed 

to find any.

There is another criticism of the way in which standards were 

and are set which has nothing to do with the lack of good scientific 

data or the zero-risk philosophy. The group w hich is charged with 

enforcing the standards also sets the standards; i.e. the police 

make the laws. Both the EPA and the ARB owe their existences to 

the fact that there are strict standards to enforce and they are 

given the right to set them as strict as they want. Furthermore, 

if the AA QS are violated, they are the prosecuting attorney, jury, 

and judge rolled into one. It is difficult to imagine the EPA or 

ARB saying that the air pollution p roblem is less serious than 

everyo ne has been led to believe and suggesting that their budgets 

be cut in half.

5. The real objective of an air quality maintenance plan should be

to achieve a degree of air cleanliness which, in balance with other

social and economic factors, will maximize human satisfaction.
255

It is necessary to have some yardstick against which to measure 

whether some action to control the environment is "good" or "bad".

This yardstick is called an objective and with out it the terms "good" 

and "bad" have no meaning. Is it "bad" to damage trees with air pollution, but "good" to cut down trees to build houses for the poor? Is it 

"bad" to destroy the snail darter (a small fish) by building a dam to 

increase the food supply, but "good" to sl aughter cattle for beefsteak?

> Without an objective there is no rational wa y to decide whether an air

quality maintenance plan is worthwhile.

The ecological hypochondriacs want to judge whether an action is 

"good" or "bad" in terms of some uncorrupted state of nature to which 

we should return. This is nonsense; such a state never existed. What 

is loosely referr ed to as "nature" was undergoing continuous and 

violent change before any living thing, plant or animal, was on the 

earth. Judging "good" or "bad" against such a standard is not logical.

Much of the envir onmental literature implies that man alone tries 

to change the environment and that this is the cause of all the trouble. 

The fact is that every living thing has always tried (and still does 

try) to change the environment to its own benefit; the species alive today have at least partially succeeded. Man is only different in that he 

has learned to make profound changes and has recently discovered that 

some ma y not be to his benefit.

Since ma n by existing is going to change the environment (to his 

benefit, if he is rational) and since there is no original yardstick 

against which to measure the value of the changes, what yardstick should 

be chosen? We should choose the same objective for managing the 

environment (air quality! that we have chosen for all other laws and 

rules designed to manage society. The o bjective is to maximize human 

sati sfaction. Our laws and rules can be described as mutual coercion,

’*■ mutua lly agreed upon, for mutual benefit; not for individual benefit,

but for mutual benefit.
256

In specific terms the objective should be a level of pollution 

control which maximizes human satisfaction in balance with other things

in the e nvironment which also contribute to human satisfaction - such

things as jobs, schools and hospitals for examp le. This constitutes a 

logical basis for deciding whether a control action is "good" or "bad".

An a ction is good or bad relative to some alternative action depending 

upon whe ther it contributes more or less to human satisfaction in the 

Bay Area per unit of productive effort. It is now obvious that the 

stated objec tive for the AQMP, "attain and mai ntain the AAQS", is not 

an objective; it is a means to an end. If it will increase human satisfaction more than other actions requi ring the same effort, it should be 

implemented; if it will not, it should be re jected or changed. Stated 

in other words, if attaining the present air standards in the Bay Area 

will increase human satisfaction more than other actions bought with 

the same effort, they are correct standards; if attaining them will not, 

they are the wrong standards for the Bay Area. We now also have a 

method of judging wh ether a standard is correct.

Propo sing an objective whic h accepts as a possibility changing the 

present standards is heresy in some circles. It will be immediately 

attack ed with the phrase "you can't take risks where health is involved", 

which for some peculiar reason applies only to risks connected with air 

pollution. The phrase is, of course, nonsense. Risks with health are 

taken every time surgery is performed, every time you mingle with a 

crowd during flu season, every time you drive, every time you fly in a 

jet (radiation, not crash risk) and every time you smoke or are in a 

closed space with smokers. These risks are taken because we believe 

that wha t we would give up to avoid the risks is too much compared to 

what we might lose by taking the risks. We do not have a zero-risk 

society and no one has suggested that we pay the price for one in any 

human endeavor, including the protection of health, except for the 

single case of air pollution.

The above objective will also be criticized as advocating throwing all living things other than man on the trash heap. It doesn't,

*
because a real understanding of the environment as a complicated intertwined network will lead to the conclusion that it is to man ’s benefit, 

materi al as well as aesthetic, to limit the pollution of the environment.

If there were no other arguments for accepting this objective, one 

would stand alone. It is the objective which the public will eventually 

demand when they realize that no others can be logically supported and 

when they realize that the ones currently offered are not true ob jectives. The p resen t air standards and all of the environmental legislation 

can be justified only if it can be shown that they maximize human

sati sfaction.

6. It is possi ble to set standards for the Bay Area whic h will achieve

a reasonable balance among all of the factors which contribute to

human satisfaction, including air wh ich is healthful and pleasant

to br eathe.

The justification given in the AQMP for its stringent control 

measur es is that the air in the Bay Area is unhealthy at times, since 

the pre sent standards are exceeded once in a while. The truth of this 

statement will be examined.

AAQS are always referred to as "health related" or "set to protect 

public health" and the air quality is described in terms of "how many 

times last mon th the health-related standard was exceeded". The con ­

tinual repet ition of these phrases has convinced the public of the 

gross m isconception that health is endangered when a standard is

exc eed ed. This is the misconce ption repeat ed in the AQMP as justification for strict controls.

Instead of being a "danger level", the value of a present standard 

is a zero-risk level for three reasons, all of which were intentionally 

included by E PA whe n the standards were set. First, each one was set 

at a value bel ow the point whic h available data indicated to be the 

threshold for effects on health. Second, this threshold was defined
258

as the thresho ld for the most sensitive groups. Third, each standard 

contained a large margin of safety because the data were not reliable. 

Consequently, health is not endangered just because one of the present 

standards is exceeded; these standards are set at zero-risk or safe 

levels of pollutants.

Finally, the number of times a standard is exceeded is a poor 

measure of air quality, regardless of the value of the standard. A 

simple average of the highest hourly readings each day is a better, 

though not the best, measure of air quality.

Even though health is not endangered just because a standard is 

exceeded, it would still be possible for the air in the Bay Area to be 

unhealthy if the standards were exceeded frequently by large amounts. 

Data taken from the BAAPCD monthly reports for the 7-month period of 

April to October 1977 show that this is not true.

Carbon Mono xid e. The Federal 1-hour and the State 1 and 12-hour 

standards were not e xceeded during the entire period. The Federal 

8-hour s tandard was exceeded once in October and 3 times in April by 

very small amounts.

Nitro gen Dioxide. The State 1-hour standard of 0.25ppm was exceeded once in 7 months by O.Olppm; the reading was 0.26ppm.

Sulfur Dioxid e. No excesses of either the Federal or very strict 

State 24-hour standards were recorded. A ground-level station designed 

to read discharges from a point source recorded one violation of the 

State 1-hour standard.

Particulate Ma tter. The Federal health standard was never exceeded. The strict State standard of 100 micrograms per cubic meter was 

exceeded on 13 days out of 214. On 5 of these days the maximum was less 

than 110 and on 11 days the max imum was less than 130.

Oxi dan t. The Federal S tandard was violat ed on 33 days and the 

State one on 16 days. The difference between 33 and 16 shows that the 

Federal standard was not exceeded by much, since the Federal AAQS is 

0.08 ppm and the State one is O.lOppm. The highest hourly value recorded during the 7 months was 0.17ppm, less than the level at which the 

State episod e plan calls for a warning to the most sensitive g roups.
The monthly averag es of the highest hourl y readings recorded at each 

station on each day never e xceeded one-half the Federal standard. Note: 

these are not average oxidant levels, which wo uld be even lower; these 

are averages of the hi ghest readings each day.

Now that it is clear that the presen t standards are set at zerorisk levels a nd that the air quality in the Bay Area is at or near these 

safe levels, the last psychological barrie r to designing a rational air 

quality manag ement plan has been removed. A rational plan is one in 

whic h the objective, maximizing human satisfaction, sets the air quality

standards rather than letting arbitrary and q uestionable standards determine the ob jec tive. Such a plan can be designed, but political 

action through Congress is essential, if the Bay Area is to be permitted 

such rational behavior.

A rational plan can be designed, if the truth in the form of four 

facts is faced directly. These facts are

1. The present air quality standards cannot be attained and maintained 

in the Bay Ar ea w ithout limiting the growth at or near the present 

size.

2. The present standards are not essential for the protection of 

health. They are not sacred; actually they have the weakest foundation of any idols at whose feet an entire nation has ever worshipped

3. Standards should be selected w hich m axim ize human satisfaction when 

the value of reasonably clean air is balanced with all the other 

items which also make up a good environment.

4 . Any air qu ality standards, regardless of their exact values, become 

a no-gr owth rule at some point. Different standards than the 

present ones will change the point at whi ch growth in the Bay Area 

must be limited, but will not eliminate the fact that some limit

on g rowth is eventually necessary to pr event a serious decrease in 

the qu ality of the environment.

Item #1 was discussed at the beginning, but a couple of reminders 

are in order. The three actions which are predicted in the AQMP to
contribute the most toward attaining the standards are all growthlimiting tools. Two of them, New and Indirect Source Review, were 

specifically identified as such in the AQMP. The third one, BACT, would 

limit gr owth by putting Bay Area industries at a competitive disadvantage and by diverting capital from other activities such as housing.

Both of these were stated to be results of BACT in EMTF documents; both 

would reduce jobs; i.e., limit growth.

Item #2 has just been discussed in detail and the discussion of 

Item #3 will be postponed until after a few words about Item #4. It is 

sometimes said that improvements in technology will eliminate the reality 

of no-growth at some point. This is not correct. First, there is the 

point made in the last paragraph; technological control carried to the 

extreme becomes growth limiting. Second, large quantities of energy in 

various forms (food, electricity, gasoline, materials) are needed to 

support our standard of living. No technology will ever produce these 

things with zero waste (pollutants) per unit produced. Hence, if 

enough of these items are produced enough waste will be produced to exceed the capacity of the Bay Area air basin.

Item #3 will be criticized on the basis that it advocates ignoring 

the health of the most sensitive people. This is not true; Item #3 

really advocates spending our effort where it will do the most good.

The AQMP estimated the annual cost of meeting the oxidant standard 

at §400 milli on and justified this expenditure on the basis that it is 

necessary to protect the health of some people. Questions which should 

be answered in designing a rational air quality management plan must include

- would §400 million per year spent on medical research on asthma, 

heart disease and emphysema or on air pollution control buy more 

protection for the sensitive people?

- would §400 million spent on child health care centers or on air 

pollu tion control buy more improvement in public health?
- should the Bay Area spend more per year on air pollution control 

than the estimated nationwide annual health cost due to air p ollution; estimated between $62 and $311 million?

- would it accomplish more with less effort to equip every Bay Area 

residence of a sensitive person with a simple filter which would 

reduce the oxidant concentration by 90%? This could certainly be 

done for a one-time c ost less than $400 million.

If the reason for air pollution control is to reduce exposure to 

carbon monoxide (CO), another interesting comparison is available. It 

has b een estimated that 85 to 90% of the total exposure of the population to CO comes from smoking and that the annual nationwide health cost 

due to cigarette smoking is $4.23 billion. This compared to the annual 

nationwide heaith cost due to air pollution of $62 to $311 million raises 

the ques tion

If the purpose is to protect health, is the effort devoted to air 

pollution control being spent in the right place?

EPILOGUE

Yes, if we face the truth directly it will be possible to develop 

an air quality plan for the Bay Area which will maximize human satisfaction and not cost $400 mil lion per year. If facing the truth is too 

unpleasant, there is, of course, another solution. We can continue to 

swallow the tranquilizers, whi ch are labeled AQMP and off-set rule and 

are furnished by the EPA, until the inevitable day when reality springs 

the trap and drops us feet foremost into empty space.
262

36. Recommended Air Quality Standards Applicable to All Air Basins;

Technical Advisory Committee to the Air Resources Board; Sept. 1970.

37. Physiological Effects of Air Pollutants in Humans Subjected to 

Secondary Stress; Final Report CARB Contract No .2-372; Hackney.

38. The Clean Air Act; EPA; Dec. 1970.

39. Environment, Power and Society; Odum; Wiley Interscience, 1971.

40. The Optimal Level of Pollution; Stanford Alumni Quarterly, 1970.

41. A Blueprint for Survival; The Ecologist, Jan. 1972; Goldsmith, et al.

42. The Quest for Environmental Quality in the USSR; American Scientist, £

Nov.-Dec. 1972; Pryde.

43. Exploring New Ethics for Survival; Viking Press, 1972; Hardin. .

44. Health Hazards May Be Price of SO2 Cleanup; C&EN, 14 Nov. 1977, p.6.

45. Final Report of the Ad-Hoc Oxidant Measurement Committee to the Air (

Resources Board; 20 Feb. 1975.

46. Acute Effects of Inhaled S02 Combined with Hygroscopic Aerosol in 

Healthy Man; presented at the 73rd. Annual Meeting of the American 

Thoracic Society, San Francisco, 17 May 1977; Frank, et al.

47. Evaluating Uncertainties Associated with Air Quality Projections;

68th Annual Meeting of APCA, 15 June 1975; Holmes et al.

48. An Epidemiological Survey of Carboxyhemoglobin in Nonsmokers in Los 

Angeles; Final Report Interagency Agreement ARB 847, 1 Feb. 1975;

State Department of Health.

49. Ozone and Human Blood; Arch. Environ Health, 30, 40 ,(Jan. 1975);

Hackney, et al.

50. Remarks by Charles M. Heinen, 9th. Technical Meeting West Coast 

Section of APCA, 13 October 1977.

51. Progress Report of the Draft Environmental Management Plan; Sept.

1977; ABAG.

52. Memo to EMTF from Dean Marcris and Eugene Leong on EMTF Modifications 

of the Environmental Management Plan; 9 Nov. 1977.

53. Draft Summary of the Draft Environmental Management Plan; Dec. 1977;

ABAG.

54. Economic and Air Quality Impacts of New Source Review Regulations 

in the Bay Area; Nov. 1977; ABAG.

55. Outdoor-Indoor Levels of Air Pollutants; CARB Contract No. 4-053-1;

Final Report, ca. 1973; Thompson.
263

56. How the Clean Air Rules Were Set; Wall Street Journal, 29 May 1973; 

Wanniski.

57. Personal communication during visit to Charlson’s laboratory at 

Univ. of Washington; August 1977.

58. Air Quality Maintenance Plan Briefs Nos.l,2,3&4; staff reports prepared for the EMTF.

59. Recommendations for the Draft Environmental Management Plan; Sept. 

1977; ABAG.

60. Some Questions About the Benefits and Costs of the Land Use Controls 

Proposed in the ABAG Draft Environmental Management Plan; Nov. 1977; 

Gruen Gruen and Associates.

61. Report on the California 24-Hour Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

Sulfur Dioxide; 15 August 1974; Staff of the ARB.

62. Present and Future Options for Air Pollution Control in California; 

Technical Advisory Committee to the ARB; Dec. 1971.

63. Proposed Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards; 10 March 1971; 

Technical Advisory Committee to the ARB.

64. Minutes of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) from 1968 to

the present. ■ ' ,r

65. Carbon Monoxide: Natural Sources Dwarf Man's Output; Science, 177 

338, (28 July 1972); Maugh.

66. Coitaminant and Weather Summary; Technical Services Division of 

BAAPCD; April to October 1977.

67. Air Quality Maintenance Plan Tech. Memos; ABAG Staff.

68. Federal Register 1 Dec. 1976; 41 FR 52686.

69. Federal Register 17 March 1976; 41 FR 11258.

70. Characterization of Aerosols in California (ACHEX); Final Report;

30 Sept. 1974; CARB Contract No. 358; Hidy et al.

71. Behavioral Impairment Associa ted with Small Doses of Carbon Monoxide 

Amer. J. Public Health 57:2012-2011, (Nov. 1967).

72. Evaluation of Nationwide Health Costs of Air Pollution and Cigarette 

Smoking; JAPCA 24 , 1063, (Nov. 1974); Williams and Justus.

73. Air Pollution Control - A Perspective; JAPCA 25, 681, (July 1975); 

Stern.

74. Reevaluation of the Chattanooga Study: Possible Impact on the NO2

X Standard; JAPCA 23 , 769, (Sept. 1973); Warner and Stevens.
Strengthening the Clean Air Act; JAPCA 2 3, 1019, (Dec. 1973);

Stern.

Relationship of Hydrocarbons to Oxidants in Ambient Atmospheres; 

JAPCA 20, 297, (May 1970); Shuck et al.

Ozone Levels in the Vicinity of 33 Cities; JAPCA 26 , 771, (Aug.

1976); Fankhauser.

Correction of Ozone-Altitude Data and Stratospheric-Source Implications; JAPCA 26, 587, (June 1976); Cook and Bourke.

Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Goals for Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, and Nitrogen Oxides Based on Desired Air Quality Levels; 

JAPCA 20, 519, (Aug. 1970): Barth.

National Air Quality Standards for Automotive Pollutants - A Critical 

Review; JAPCA 21, 535, (Sept. 1971); Huess, et al.

Can the SO2 Standards Be Justified or Afforded?; JAPCA 25, 9, (Jan. 

1975); Megonnell.
Appendix 2.—Additional Material Submitted for the Record

P A C I F I C G A S A N D E L E C T R I C C O M P A N Y

I P < S r ? 3 * I B — j— 77 BEA LE STRE ET • SAN FR AN CISC O. CA LIFO RNIA 94106 • (4 1 6 ) 78 1-4 211 • TWX 910-3 72-6 587

I

Co ng ressma n Leo J . Ryan _

1720 South A m phl et t B oule var d, S u it e 219 

San M at eo , C a lif o r n ia 94402

Dea r Co ng ressman Rya n:

Thank you fo r your l e t t e r o f Ju ne 15 , 19 78 , 

in v itin g Malc olm A. M ac K illo p, V ic e- Pre si deK tv -G over nm er .tal 

R e la ti o n s , to ap p ear as a w it n e ss otv -Jun e 24 a jA h e San 

F ra n c is c o h e a rin g s on th e Environm doX aRMa nffgem ent P la n 

bein g conduct ed by th e Envir onm en t, E nerg y, and N a tu ra l 

R es ourc es Su bc om m itt ee o f th e House Govern me nt O p era ti o n s 

Com mitt ee .

As R al ph B. Dewey ha s a lr e a d y d is c u s s e d w it h Dav id 

Sc hu en ke o f your W as hin gto n s t a f f , Mr. M ac K ill op i s c u rre n tl y 

o u t o f th e s t a t e an d w ill th e re fo re be u n a v a il a b le to ap p ea r. . 

However, we u n d e rs ta n d th a t Ang elo S ir a c u s a o f th e Bay Area 

C ounci l w i l l be t e s t i f y i n g on Ju ne 23. The vi ew s o f th e Bay 

Area C o u n cil , o f w hi ch we a re a- membe r, w ill s u b s ta n tia lly 

re p re s e n t th o se o f th e P a c if ic Gas an d E l e c t r i c Company.

Thank you fo r t h i s o p p o rtu n it y to appear b e fo re 

your Su bco m m itte e.

i

S in c e re ly ,

V ic e P r e s id e n t, Gov ernm en tal 

R e la ti o n s

TWH:scu

c c : Ang elo S ir a c u s a 

R al ph B. Dewey

(265)

o