PPaaccee EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall LLaaww RReevviieeww Volume 23 Issue 3 Special Edition 2006 Article 6 The Intersection of Environmental and Land Use Law September 2006 IInn PPrraaiissee ooff PPaarroocchhiiaalliissmm:: TThhee AAddvveenntt ooff LLooccaall EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall LLaaww John R. Nolon Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn John R. Nolon, In Praise of Parochialism: The Advent of Local Environmental Law, 23 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 705 (2006) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol23/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Environmental Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES BY PROFESSOR JOHN R. NOLON In Praise of Parochialism: The Advent of Local Environmental Law Copyright (c) (2002) by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Harvard Environmental Law Review JOHN R. NOLON* 1. INTRODUCTION National environmental policy emphasizes the central role of the federal government as the standard-setter and steward of a healthy environment. This focus on the responsibility of the na- tional government and its various and uneven collaborations with the states has all but obscured the role of local governments in environmental protection.1 While federal agencies have success- fully reduced pollution that emanates from "point sources," such as smoke stacks and water pipes, most environmental damage to- day is caused by "nonpoint source" pollution resulting from land uses that are the legal responsibility of municipal governments.2 Federal attempts to influence local regulatory prerogatives have been thwarted by a variety of legal, political, and practical obstacles. Meanwhile, there has been a remarkable and unnoticed trend among local governments to adopt laws that protect natural re- sources. These local environmental laws take on a number of * This is a slightly abridged version of an article that originally appeared in 26 HARv. ENVTL. L. REV. 365 (2002). I would like to thank Kristen Kelley for her invalu- able research assistance. 1. By local government, municipal government, locality, or municipality, this Ar- ticle means any incorporated city, town, village, borough, county, or other governmen- tal entity smaller than a state that has been delegated authority to regulate the use of land in the public interest. 2. See infra note 19 and accompanying text. 705 1 706 PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 23 forms. They include local comprehensive plans expressing envi- ronmental values, zoning districts created to protect watershed areas, environmental standards contained in subdivision and site plan regulations, and stand-alone environmental laws adopted to protect particular natural resources such as ridgelines, wetlands, floodplains, stream banks, existing vegetative cover, and forests. The purposes of these laws are to preserve natural resources from the adverse impacts of land development and to control nonpoint source pollution. In inventing these controls, local governments have creatively used a variety of traditional and modern powers that their state legislatures have delegated to them. This powerful trend at the grassroots level of environmental policy-making presents an opportunity to revisit the national ap- proach to environmental protection and to create a more inte- grated system that incorporates the historical function of local governments in protecting the public from the perils of pollution and environmental degradation. This Article explains the role that local governments have as- sumed in protecting the environment, explores the means by which they have obtained their authority to do so, and discusses how this enhanced municipal role should influence environmental and land use policy at the federal and state levels. Part II reviews federal efforts to control nonpoint source pollution, and identifies the constraints on federal action. Among these constraints is the national understanding that the power to control the private use of land is a state prerogative, one that has been delegated, in most states, to local governments. Part III describes how the traditional authority of localities to control land use has evolved to incorpo- rate environmental protection standards, and how local land use agencies apply and enforce those standards. In Part IV, the vari- ous methods that state legislatures and courts have used to dele- gate and expand the authority of local governments to protect the environment are explored, explained, and analyzed. This Part demonstrates that the importance of controlling environmental degradation at the local level has led states to expand the range of matters that may be regulated under traditional land use author- ity, home rule powers, and special purpose statutes. Part V sum- marizes empirical research regarding local environmental laws and provides detailed illustrations of the various types of protec- tions that municipalities have adopted. Part VI makes the case that local governments, despite their much-lamented limitations, should be full partners of the state and federal governments in the https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol23/iss3/6 2 2006] IN PRAISE OF PAROCHIALISM 707 critical matter of environmental protection. Part VII argues that the advent of local environmental law is a natural and healthy response of the legal system to environmental exigencies, precipi- tated in part by the inertia experienced at the federal level, and that it is time to change federal and state policy to reinforce and utilize this powerful new grass-roots force. II. FEDERAL EFFORTS TO CONTROL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION While local governments have been working to adopt laws of their own invention to control nonpoint source pollution, federal agencies, working toward the same objective, have attempted to influence local land use decisions using a variety of strategies. This is particularly evident in the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to control air and water pollution. Early attempts by EPA to reduce air pollution by intervening in local development matters were recognized as a threat to the power of the states to control land use, secured by the Tenth Amendment.3 These attempts were met with amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1977 that expressly prohibited federal require- ments aimed directly at land use control.4 The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments were not an isolated ex- ample of the reluctance of the federal government to interfere with the plenary land use authority of the states. At the inception of the era of federal activism in environmental protection, Senator Henry Jackson proposed the adoption of a National Land Use Planning Act as a bookend to the National Environmental Policy Act, to integrate federal, state, regional, and local land use plan- ning. This federal land use act was narrowly defeated in the House of Representatives in 1974, in part because it was regarded as an assault on the independent authority of the states to control land use.5 More recently, the efforts of the Army Corps of Engi- neers to prevent the construction of a landfill by a consortium of municipalities in the Chicago area were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. 3. The Tenth Amendment provides as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U.S. Const. amend. X. 4. See 42 U.S.C. § 7431 (1994) (stating that "[niothing in this chapter constitutes an infringement on the existing authority of counties and cities to plan or control land use, and nothing in this chapter provides or transfers authority over such land use"). 5. See John R. Nolon, National Land Use Planning:R evisiting Senator Jackson's 1970 Policy Act, LAND USE L. & ZONING DIG., May 1996, at 5. 3 708 PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 23 United States Army Corps of Engineers,6 the Court held that the Army Corps lacked jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to reg- ulate development in intrastate, non-navigable waters solely on the basis of the presence of migratory birds.7 The jurisdictional limits of federal agencies to protect the environment, resting in part on the Interstate Commerce Clause of the federal Constitu- tion, were at issue in this case. Such jurisdictional limits, of course, do not constrain state governments or their localities in regulating wetland disturbances or other private land uses. These jurisdictional, constitutional, and political obstacles have redirected federal energies from regulating land use to influ- encing state land use regulation. The Clean Water Act provides states with federal funds to encourage land use planning to pre- vent nonpoint source pollution.8 State and local governments are encouraged under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act to adopt plans to preserve coastal areas.9 Federal financial aid is denied for developments in sensitive coastal areas under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.10 The modification of habitats that may harm endangered species is prohibited under the Endan- gered Species Act ("ESA") unless the modification is allowed by a permit issued pursuant to an approved habitat conservation plan." 6. 531 U.S. 159 (2001). 7. Id. at 171. 8. 33 U.S.C. § 1281(g)(1) (1994). 9. The Act provides grants to coastal states to develop management programs for their coastal zones. 16 U.S.C. 88 1451-1465 (1994). State programs must meet sev- eral requirements, including providing for management of land uses having a signifi- cant impact on coastal waters and making a clear statement of which agencies and officials are to take action to implement the program. See Linda A. Malone, The Coastal Zone Management Act and The Takings Clause in the 1990's: Making The Case for Federal Land Use to Preserve Coastal Areas, 62 U. COLO. L. REV. 711, 727 (1991) (stating that "[if] the requirements for state programs were more specific, the CZMA could come close to the most controversial form of land control-federal land control. The passage of the CZMA was possible because the Act required state pro- grams to implement federal policy rather than federal regulations."). 10. 16 U.S.C. § 3501 (1994 & Supp. V 1999). 11. 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (1994). The ESA is an example of a federal environmental law that pursues objectives other than the prevention of nonpoint source pollution and illustrates how federally prescribed standards and procedures may interfere with the prerogatives of local governments to control land use. Under the ESA, landowners and developers may prepare Habitat Conservation Plans ("HCPs") that fully describe proposed land development activities and demonstrate measures that will mitigate their adverse impact on endangered or threatened species. Id. § 1539(a)(2)(A). An ap- proved HCP is a prerequisite for the issuance of a permit for land development activi- ties that result in an incidental taking of a protected species. Id. § 1539(a). This regulatory regime is based on the ESA's ban on taking of endangered species by any https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol23/iss3/6 4 2006] IN PRAISE OF PAROCHIALISM 709 .... These efforts are nonetheless a heroic effort on the part of the federal government to reach down to the local level and di- rectly influence the effects that land use has on air and water quality and on natural resources. A manifestation of this struggle is seen in the recent EPA pro- posal to delay a Clean Water Act rule that revises the federal im- paired waters program.12 The Total Maximum Daily Load ("TMDL") program established under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify and list waters not meeting federally established water quality standards. States are required to allocate the quantities of particular pollutants among the sources that discharge into impaired waters, to ensure that pollu- tants do not exceed federal standards, and to provide reasonable assurances to EPA that their allocations will be enforced. On July 16, 2001, EPA filed its proposal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to delay by eighteen months the effective date of its final rule under the TMDL program.13 The acronyms and technical vocabulary should not mask the simple reality of the TMDL program: the pollutants it regulates emanate largely from development projects and land uses that are regulated by local and state agencies. The type of nonpoint source pollution of water affected by the TMDL program includes the runoff from impervious surfaces such as roofs, driveways, parking lots, and roads; erosion and sedimentation caused by development activities, including the removal of vegetation and site distur- bance; and the movement into water bodies of fertilizer, pesti- cides, and herbicides from lawns, golf courses, and farms. While federal authority to regulate point source discharges from air stacks, effluent pipes, and other discernable, discrete conveyances has been established, federal power to regulate nonpoint source pollution is far from clear, in part because of the independent au- person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Id. § 1538(a)(1). "Persons" sub- ject to the Act include private citizens and entities such as local governments and officials. Id. § 1532(13). The process of preparing and reviewing an HCP is somewhat redundant of local requirements contained in site plan or subdivision regulations that require developers to prepare detailed development plans and submit them to local administrative agencies for review and approval. 12. Susan Bruninga, EPA Moves to Delay Action on TMDL Rule; Rule Changes May Be Proposed in Spring, 32 ENV'T REP. (BNA) 1415 (2001). 13. See id. at 1415. 5 710 PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 23 thority of state governments to regulate the land uses that cause 14 such pollution. It is interesting to ask what recourse EPA has, assuming its authority to enforce TMDL standards, if a state refuses to cooper- ate or fails to do an adequate job of preventing the nonpoint source pollution of waters that are designated as impaired under the TMDL program.15 Hypothetically, EPA could assume the state's role, classify its waters, and issue, condition, or deny permits for proposed land uses under a pollution prevention system of federal design. Because of the cost and controversy involved in making EPA responsible for the regulation of nonpoint source pollution, this threat may be illusory. There are, however, precedents for this type of EPA preemptive strike and penalties within EPA's control for state noncompliance, such as withholding discretionary funding or denying point source permit applications that would further degrade impaired waters. 14. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Clean Water Act does not give EPA the authority to regulate nonpoint source pollution. American Wildlands v. Browner, 260 F.3d 1192, 1198 (10th Cir. 2001); see also Appalachian Power Co. v. Train, 545 F.2d 1351, 1373 (4th Cir. 1976) (stating that "Congress consciously distin- guished between point source and nonpoint source discharges, giving EPA authority under the [Clean Water] Act to regulate only the former."). The American Wildlands case made it clear, however, that the TMDL Program established under 33 U.S.C. § 1313 requires states to "assure that there shall be achieved .. .cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control." American Wild- lands, 260 F.3d at 1198 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 131.112(a)(2)). 15. The circuitous route traveled by EPA to influence local land use regulation under the TMDL program is being tracked by the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") in its attempt to protect seasonal species of Pacific Northwest Salmon listed as threatened under the ESA. Under § 4(d) of the Act, NMFS has issued regulations requiring states and municipalities to adopt protective regulations. NMFS issued these regulations under authority of 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (1994). Since local governments in northwest states regulate and permit land use activities in watersheds that contain salmon habitat, localities that fail to adopt protective standards can be said to have neglected their duties under the ESA. See supra note 9. An emerging legal theory posits that local governments are liable for third party developer and landowner ac- tions that endanger protected species. This is implicit in the NMFS rules that grant immunity from such liability for local governments that adopt regulations to protect salmon and for third parties acting under approved local regulations. In Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council, 148 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 1998), the Eleventh Circuit held that an environmental plaintiff had standing to challenge a Florida county for failing to regulate beachfront lighting when that lighting was shown to be the proximate cause of the disorientation and death of turtle hatchlings in their attempt to return to the sea. This injury to a protected species was found to be "fairly traceable" to the actions of the county. Id. at 1249. On remand, it was found that the county's regula- tions did not cause the taking of an ESA-protected species. Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council, 92 F.Supp. 2d 1296 (M.D. Fla. 2000). This specific holding, however, did not negate the general principle of the circuit court's decision that local govern- ments may be liable for third party actions taken under their regulations. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol23/iss3/6 6 20061 IN PRAISE OF PAROCHIALISM 711 Assuming that states wish to comply with the TMDL pro- gram, classify their waters as required, and establish allocation systems for the loading of pollutants within each water source, how is the program to be implemented? To act effectively, the states inevitably must require their local governments to amend their land use controls to meet TMDL standards or preempt local authority to the extent necessary to meet those standards through more direct state action. Simply stating this proposition reveals the depth of the problem. Nearly all states maintain the power to preempt local land use authority in order to address matters of state concern.16 Preventing potentially hazardous water quality degradation surely constitutes such a concern. Neither this need nor a state's authority to act, however, will necessarily overcome the historic reluctance of states to disturb the authority of local governments to control land use. For thirty years, articulate voices have been suggesting the reform of state land use laws to address the multi- ple problems caused by the parochial nature of local land use con- trol.17 These shortcomings include the exclusionary effects of local land use standards, the adverse environmental impacts of locally 16. See, e.g., Wambat Realty Corp. v. New York, 362 N.E.2d 581 (N.Y. 1977). The power of the state-created Adirondack Park Agency to preempt local zoning and plan- ning authority was upheld because the "future of a cherished regional park is a mat- ter of state concern." Id. at 582 (punctuation omitted). The court wrote, "Of course, the Agency Act prevents localities within the Adirondack Park from freely exercising their zoning and planning powers. That indeed is its purpose and effect, not because the motive is to impair home rule, but because the motive is to serve a supervening State concern transcending local interests." Id. at 584. The court added that "to cate- gorize as a matter of purely local concern the future of the forests, open spaces and natural resources of the vast Adirondack Park region would doubtless offend aesthet- ics, ecological, and conservation principles." Id. at 582. 17. See Michael Allan Wolf, The Prescience and Centrality of Euclid v. Ambler, in ZONING AND THE AMERICAN DREAM: PROMISES STILL To KEEP 252, 253 (Charles M. Haar & Jerold S. Kayden eds., 1989) (specifying the problems identified in Euclid of assigning control over land use to local governments as "exclusion, anti-competitive- ness, parochialism, and aestheticism"). A report entitled "The Quiet Revolution," pre- pared for the Council on Environmental Quality in 1971, contained a powerful statement of the problems with local land use control: "This country is in the midst of a revolution in the way we regulate land ....T he ancient regime being overthrown is the feudal system under which the entire pattern of land development has been con- trolled by thousands of individual local governments, each seeking to maximize its tax base and minimize its social problems, and caring less what happens to all the others." FRED BOSSELMAN & DAVID CALLIES, COUNCIL ON ENVTL. QUALITY, THE QUIET REVOLUTION IN LAND USE CONTROL 1 (1972). To these must be added the propensity of local governments, most of which rely heavily on local property taxes, to favor eco- nomic development over environmental protection. See PAUL E. PETERSON, THE PRICE OF FEDERALISM 36-37, 69-75 (1995). 7 712 PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 23 sanctioned sprawl, and local resistance to regional planning. De- spite these shortcomings, only a few states have preempted local land use prerogatives or seriously directed local decision-mak- 18 ing. The importance of being able to influence land uses at the lo- cal level to achieve federal environmental goals is clear. Nonpoint source pollution is the cause of nearly half of the remaining water quality problems in the United States19 and is intimately related to land use.20 Perhaps the recent advent of local environmental law is an acknowledgment of this importance, and suggests a stra- tegic solution to the problem of imposing federal environmental solutions on local and state land use decision-making. The gradual appearance of local natural resource protection laws is evidence that states are giving local governments authority in this area and that local political leaders have chosen to exercise that authority. Some localities have begun to understand the benefits of regulat- ing land uses on a watershed basis by creating zoning districts or overlay zones the borders of which follow the topographical bound- aries of critical watersheds.21 There are even examples of local planning that integrate watershed and transportation corridor 18. After analyzing recent state planning and smart growth legislation, Robert H. Freilich concludes, "One of the major problems discussed in earlier chapters-that of parochialism-is not solved by any of the provisions discussed .... The nation's land use problems and the states' failure to reclaim some of their authority delegated early on to localities in the land use field points to the need for efficient and comprehensive planning at the state level." ROBERT H. FREILICH, FROM SPRAWL TO SMART GROWTH 240 (1999). 19. Joe Cannon, Choices and Institutions in Watershed Management, 25 WM. & MARY ENVTL. L. & POL'¥ REV. 379, 388 (2000). 20. See James C. Buresh, State and FederalL and Use Regulation:A n Application to Groundwater and Nonpoint Source Pollution Control, 95 YALE L.J. 1433, 1433 (1986); see also Chuck Sulfin, Protecting Our Water Resources Through Better Devel- opment Practices,N ONPoINT SOURCE NEWS-NoTES, Jan. 2002, at 1. The U.S. Supreme Court recently discussed the connection between land use and nonpoint source pollu- tion in its opinion in Tahoe-SierraP reservationC ouncil, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Plan- ning Agency, No. 00-1167, 2002 WL 654431 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2002): Impervious coverage-such as asphalt, concrete, buildings, and even packed dirt-prevents precipitation from being absorbed by the soil. In- stead, the water is gathered and concentrated by such coverage. Larger amounts of water flowing off a driveway or a roof have more erosive force than scattered raindrops falling over a dispersed area-especially one covered with indigenous vegetation, which softens the impact of the rain- drops themselves. Id. at *3 (quoting Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 34 F.Supp.2d 1226, 1231 (D.Nev. 1999). 21. See infra notes 132-137 and accompanying text. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol23/iss3/6 8 2006] IN PRAISE OF PAROCHIALISM 713 planning.22 When local governments begin to think in these stra- tegic ways, it leads to cooperation across municipal lines, since the movement of water and motor vehicles follows regional, rather than local, patterns. The realization that federal environmental policy must deal with private land use at the local level is not new. When lobbying on behalf of the National Land Use Planning Act in the early 1970s, the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, Russel Train, testified that land use was "the single most impor- tant element affecting the quality of our environment which re- mains substantially unaddressed as a matter of national policy."23 The tension involved in the implementation of the TMDL pro- gram, however, indicates that the dilemma of realizing federal en- vironmental objectives in light of state power under the Tenth Amendment is a persistent one. III. THE ADVENT OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Over the past few years, local governments throughout the country have adopted an impressive number of local environmen- tal laws.24 These include a variety of novel ordinances designed to protect discrete natural resources such as trees, stands of timber, hillsides, viewsheds, ridgelines, streambeds, wetlands, water- sheds, aquifers, water bodies, and even wildlife habitats. At the same time, provisions designed specifically to protect environmen- tal features from the impacts of development have been added to fundamental land use documents such as comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. Traditional land use regulations such as those governing subdivisions, cluster developments, and site plans are being amended with environmental protection in mind. There is something new in these laws that regulate the private use of the land in the interest of environmental conservation that bears examination. 22. See Routes 202/35/6 Bear Mountain Parkway Sustainable Development Study (Nov. 27, 2000), available at http://www.202and6.com/report-summaries/Outreach_ VisioningSummary.pdf (on file with the Harvard Environmental Law Review). 23. Henry L. Diamond, Land Use: Environmental Orphan, ENVrL. FORUM, Jan.- Feb. 1993, at 31, 32. 24. John R. Nolon & Kristen Kelley, Local Environmental Law: Natural Evolu- tion or a Mutant Form?, 12 ENVTL. L. IN N.Y. 173, 191 (2001). 9