Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564990
label
[Environment] - Environmental Quality Study Council Progress Report, February 1971
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564990
contentType
document
title
[Environment] - Environmental Quality Study Council Progress Report, February 1971
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564990
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
bfa3780bfc5a44cd
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Environment] - Environmental Quality
Study Council Progress Report, February 1971
Box: P36
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
PRESS
State
of
California
Environmental
Quality
Study
Council
Progress
Report
February
1071
State
of
California
Environmental
Quality
Study
Council
Progress
Report
February
1971
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ii
COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
iii
PREFACE
V
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1
INTRODUCTION
2
The State's Strained Carrying Capacity
2
Air Pollution: From a Regional to a Statewide Problem
2
Population Distribution on a National Scale
3
Governmental Limitation and Fragmentation
3
The Solution: A Comprehensive Statewide Mechanism
4
Immediate Action for Metropolitan Crisis Areas
4
The Growth Ethic
5
DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
6
AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
6
The Need for a New Approach
6
Coordination is Not Enough
6
An Environmental Management Structure
7
The Time is Now
8
The Organization
8
The Board
9
Regional Boards
9
Areas Regulated
9
Control of Other Governmental Entities
11
Citizen Involvement and Standing to Sue
11
A Board VS. Department
12
What Will Be Different under a New Structure
13
NECESSARY IMMEDIATE ACTION
13
An Emergency Air Quality Measure
14
Earliest Possible Relief
14
Long Term Measures
15
Basin Carrying Capacity: There is a Limit
15
Population Concentration and Public Health
16
Critical Air Basins: What Are Their Population Limits
17
OTHER CRITICAL ISSUES
17
State Planning
17
Coastline Protection
17
Statewide Open Space Acquisition and Preservation
17
Recreational and Second Home Developments
18
Gas Tax Diversion
18
Public Information
19
Table of Contents (continued)
Page
COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
20
THE COUNCIL'S SECOND YEAR
20
The Search for Long Range Solutions: Council Hearings
20
Committee Activities
20
Staff Activities
20
Recommendations for Immediate Action
21
San Diego
21
Livermore
21
Santa Rosa
22
OTHER HEARINGS
23
Millbrae
23
Los Angeles
23
Fresno and San Francisco
24
Youth and the Environment
24
FURTHER RESULTS FROM THE COUNCIL'S FIRST YEAR
24
Palm Springs
24
Inglewood
25
Palmdale
25
Malibu
26
Huntington Beach
27
MEDIA COVERAGE
28
FUTURE OBJECTIVES
28
THE COUNCIL IN RETROSPECT
29
APPENDICES
A. Resolution - Emergency Air Quality Measures
Al
B. Resolution - Basin Carrying Capacity Study
Bl
C. Schedule of Council and Committee Activities
Cl
D. Public Hearing and Study Session Participants
D1
E. Environmental Quality Study Council - The
Enabling Legislation
El
F. Chart - State of California Activities Affecting
Environmental Protection and Improvement
Fl
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STUDY COUNCIL
SACRAMENTO
February 1, 1971
CALIFORNIA
Honorable Ronald Reagan
Governor of California
Honorable Ed Reinecke
Lieutenant Governor, and
President of the Senate
Honorable James R. Mills
President pro Tempore, and
Members of the State Senate
Honorable Bob Moretti
Speaker, and Members of the
State Assembly
Gentlemen:
In compliance with Section 16055 of the Government
Code, the second Progress Report of the State
Environmental Quality Study Council is hereby
submitted. The report covers the activities of
the Council during 1970, and recommends legislative
action for the 1971 Session.
The Council trusts that its efforts, in proposing
governmental mechanisms for the control and
enhancement of our environment and in recommending
immediate steps toward solution of our more crucial
problems, will prove helpful to the Governor and
the Legislature.
Submitted on behalf of the members of the Council.
Respectfully
David & Baber David
David L. Baker
Chairman
- i -
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Council expresses its sincere thanks to those
who have aided and supported its activities during
the past year: members of the Legislature, their
committees and consultants; the Lieutenant Governor
and his staff, who have provided an important Council
liaison to the Administration; the Environmental
Policy Committee task team who assisted in the
preparation of the inventory of State of California
Activities Affecting Environmental Protection and
Improvement (Appendix F); the environmentally
involved entities of State government; and the
numerous conservation and environmental groups,
both quasi-governmental and public. We are also
indebted to Mr. Graham O. Smith for the cover design
and for technical assistance in the preparation of
this report.
We again express our gratitude to those who gave of
their time and efforts to participate in our public
hearings, and to those who have contributed their
specialized knowledge to our study sessions. (See
Appendix D.) We are grateful, too, for the warm
hospitality enjoyed in the cities in which we have
met.
The Council especially appreciates the interest
and encouragement expressed in the many letters
received from California citizens, particularly
those in support of the recommendations contained
in this report. It is a rather poignant reflection
of our times that some of these letters are from
the very young, who, in another era, would have
been far more absorbed in the less somber pursuits
of childhood.
- ii -
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STUDY COUNCIL
MEMBERS
DAVID L. BAKER, Chairman
Supervisor, County of Orange
TOM CARRELL, State Senator
KERRY MULLIGAN, Chairman, State
SAMUEL A. EGIGIAN, Southern
Water Resources Control Board
District Refuse Removal Council
ALBERT PEARLSON, Attorney at Law
A. J. HAAGEN-SMIT, Ph.D., Chairman
ARTHUR F. PILLSBURY, Director,
State Air Resources Board
Water Resources Center, UCLA
JAMES M. HALL, State Secretary
HELEN B. REYNOLDS, President,
for Business and Transportation
California Roadside Council
ELLEN STERN HARRIS, Executive
EDWARD M. ROSS, Attorney at Law
Secretary, Council for Planning
RANDOLPH E. SIPLE, Attorney at Law
and Conservation
FRANK J. TYSEN, Professor
BRUCE J. HELD, Sandia Corporation
Air Pollution Control Institute,
NORMAN B. LIVERMORE, JR., State
School of Public Administration,
Secretary for Resources
USC
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS
LOUIS M. SAYLOR, M.D., Director,
City and County Members of
Department of Public Health
Council on Intergovernmental
JERRY FIELDER, Director,
Relations
Department of Agriculture
WILLIAM PENN MOTT, JR., Director,
PAUL M. ANDERSON, Supervisor,
Department of Parks and
County of Riverside
Recreation
JAMES V. FITZGERALD, Supervisor,
RAY ARNETT, Director,
County of San Mateo
Department of Fish and Game
MAURICE K. HAMILTON, Councilman,
JAMES G. STEARNS, Director,
City of San Bruno
Department of Conservation
WESLEY MC CLURE, City Manager,
JAMES MOE, Director,
City of San Leandro
Department of Public Works
HOWARD H. WIEFELS, Mayor,
WILLIAM R. GIANELLI, Director,
City of Palm Springs
Department of Water Resources
DONALD F. PINKERTON, Director,
Department of Housing and
Community Development
STAFF
COUNSEL
JOHN K. GEOGHEGAN
NICHOLAS C. YOST
Executive Secretary
Deputy Attorney General
ELDON E. RINEHART
Special Consultant
- iii -
COMMITTEES
AIR QUALITY COMMITTEE
WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Albert Pearlson, Chairman
Arthur F. pillsbury, Chairman
A. J. Haagen-Smit, Ph.D.
Bruce J. Held
Bruce J. Held
Kerry Mulligan
Edward M. Ross
Frank J. Tysen
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
ADVISORS TO COMMITTEES
LAND USE COMMITTEE
John M. Heslep, Ph.D., Deputy
Frank J. Tysen, Chairman
Director for Environmental
Samuel A. Egigian
Health and Consumer Protection
Albert Pearlson
(Land Use and Solid Waste
Helen B. Reynolds
Management Committees)
NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE
A. E. Lowe, Senior Industrial
Hygiene Engineer, Bureau of
Edward M. Ross, Chairman
Occupational Health and
Albert Pearlson
Environmental Epidemiology
Frank J. Tysen
(Noise Abatement Committee)
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Henry J. Ongerth, Chief, Bureau
COMMITTEE
of Sanitary Engineering
(Water Resources Committee)
Samuel A. Egigian, Chairman
Bruce J. Held
Lawrence B. Perry, Senior Air
Albert Pearlson
Sanitation Engineer
Arthur F. Pillsbury
(Air Quality Committee)
Edward M. Ross
Frank J. Tysen
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY GROUP ON NOISE*
Dr. Robert W. Young, Chairman
Dr. Walter W. Soroka, Professor
Naval Undersea Research and
of Acoustical Sciences,
Development Center, San Diego
University of California
Berkeley
Dr. David M. Green, Department
of Psychology, University of
John D. Webster
California, San Diego
Naval Electronics Laboratory
San Diego
Jack B. C. Purcell
Purcell-Noppe Associates
Dr. George P. Wilson
Chatsworth
Wilson, Ihrig & Associates
Berkeley
Ludwig M. Sepmeyer, Consulting
Engineer, Los Angeles
*All are members of the Acoustical Society of America
- iv -
PREFACE
Before preparing this February 1971 Progress Report
the Council had first to decide how it might be most
effective in sustaining and improving the State's
environment. Should this report deal with the many
possible solutions to each facet of environmental
quality, or would it be more appropriate to address
the final report to these questions and instead
concentrate on a small number of key measures which
would deal with the most critical problems in the
most comprehensive way? The Council has chosen the
latter approach.
Last year the environmental effort in the State
Legislature was diffused into approximately 300
measures. Although several good proposals were
adopted, strong mechanisms to deal with the basic
underlying questions of land use and population
growth were not forthcoming. The State must be
more involved in these critical issues. To do this,
a strong governmental structure will be needed. We
all know that effective environmental legislation
entails far more than defining problems and
developing technical solutions in each individual
area of concern. The real question lies in
implementation, not only in terms of money and
manpower (although this is certainly a real problem)
but also in terms of governmental mechanisms through
which these problems can be dealt with in a compre-
hensive manner based on common goals and policies.
It is to this end that the following recommendations
are submitted.
- V -
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
The Council recommends that legislation be adopted
to create an Environmental Quality Board with well-
defined powers and responsibilities over water, air,
solid waste, nuclear radiation, noise pollution,
pesticides, and - to a limited degree - land use.
It would be empowered to review and under certain
conditions disallow projects of other governmental
agencies having a significant impact on the environ-
ment. Such legislation should also include corre-
sponding regional boards and strong provisions for
citizen involvement through the creation of an
Environmental Quality Citizens Council and by
authorizing citizens' standing to sue on behalf of
the environment.
NECESSARY IMMEDIATE ACTION
An Emergency Air Quality Measure
The Council recommends that the Legislature, by
Concurrent Resolution (Appendix A), direct the Air
Resources Board to conduct intensive studies to
determine means of bringing the earliest possible
relief to the most critical air basins and to
determine what long term continuing measures are
necessary to cope effectively with existing and
future air pollution levels imperiling health, which,
according to the Air Resources Board, cannot be
adequately alleviated by existing or presently
foreseeable technical methods.
Basin Carrying Capacity
The Council recommends that the Legislature, by
Concurrent Resolution (Appendix B), direct the
Department of Public Health to conduct a study to
determine, from a health standpoint, the natural
carrying capacity of the San Francisco Bay Area
and the South Coast Basin, and to make recommen-
dations as to maximum permissible population
concentrations for each region.
- 1 -
INTRODUCTION
Last year's Council report warned in no uncertain terms of
the environmental crisis facing our State. One year later
we find that our environment has deteriorated further, while
no adequate method is yet in sight for checking, much less
reducing, this dangerous course. It has become abundantly
clear that only the boldest and most imaginative measures
can save the State from environmental disaster.
THE STATE'S STRAINED CARRYING CAPACITY
The Council's concern about environmental problems has
increased in proportion to its understanding. Much of what
seemed bold last year now appears totally inadequate. At
that time it was felt that innovative population distri-
bution policies within the State would be an effective
remedy. By encouraging or redirecting population growth
to such areas as the western edge of the Sierras in the
San Joaquin Valley, the Council felt that the carrying
capacity of the South Coast Basin and the San Francisco Bay
Area might not be strained to the breaking point. It is
now painfully evident that the carrying capacity of the
San Joaquin Valley itself is rapidly being exhausted.
Air pollution is undoubtedly the most recognizable index
of a declining environment. In 1965, Fresno, located in
the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, experienced 35 adverse
days -- days in which the oxidant content exceeded a level
recommended by the Air Resources Board as safe for humans.
In 1969, the number of adverse days in Fresno had reached
107. Yet, this tripling in air pollution was accompanied
by only a modest growth in population. One can only be
greatly alarmed to note such pollution problems in a
community surrounded by endless agricultural lands and
vast mountain forests, and removed by hundreds of miles
from any major metropolis.
AIR POLLUTION: FROM A REGIONAL TO A STATEWIDE PROBLEM
Air pollution is fast becoming a statewide problem. Smog
may be generated in San Francisco, for example, but it
doesn't stay there. One major recipient is the Livermore-
Amador Valley, 40 miles southeast of San Francisco, where
air conditions have so begun to resemble the South Coast
Basin that residents refer to the area as the "Smog Capitol
of Northern California". But it doesn't settle here, either,
for prevailing westerly winds carry it farther into the
State. The Los Angeles-produced smog, an acknowledged contrib-
utor to the rapidly diminishing air quality of the deserts
to the east, is now being blamed for the air pollution in the
Antelope Valley to the north. One need not be an expert to
- 2 -
recognize the potential danger to the air quality of that
valley, given a proposed urban population of several million.
The truth must be told. Smog now blankets much of the southern
two-thirds of California during a rapidly increasing number
of days. This includes many of our famous resort areas
where people go "to get away from it all". During 1970, air
pollution was a fact of life in Lake Tahoe, Lake Arrowhead,
Laguna Beach, Malibu, Santa Barbara, Catalina Island, and
even Carmel and Monterey. And, in world famous Palm Springs
during this past summer and fall, the Riverside County Air
Pollution Control District found that, on 60 days of the 88
monitored, the oxidants were above the level considered safe
for humans, not to speak of the obvious aesthetic and economic
damage to this community. Air pollution is no longer just a
regional problem; it has become a definite statewide problem.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION ON A NATIONAL SCALE
Under the present state of technology and our current mode
of living, not only has an environmentally sound carrying
capacity of our metropolitan areas been challenged, and even
that of our great valleys, but the carrying capacity of the
entire State is strained as well. And, of course, smog is
only one index. With noise pollution, heavy traffic conges-
tion, and inadequate land use policies, an ever growing array
of environmental ills is endangering this State at an accel-
erating rate. Population distribution is still urgently
needed, but it will no longer suffice to design such policies
simply within the State. The problem is national in scale.
Urban growth and population influx must be encouraged in those
states where the proper balance between man and nature can
still be accommodated. During World War II, contracts were
distributed throughout the country to reduce vulnerability
to enemy attack. Now we must employ the same tactics to
protect large portions of this nation from a different kind
of threat. It is obvious that California cannot handle the
problem of population growth alone. This message must be
taken not only to the Governor and the Legislature but also
to the President's Task Force on Rural Development and his
Commission on Population Growth. Meanwhile, we must make
some major changes in California.
GOVERNMENTAL LIMITATION AND FRAGMENTATION
Our governmental mechanisms and public policies, designed
basically to encourage maximum economic growth, have not
served us well in protecting the environment. Local
government's susceptibility to local pressures, its depen-
dence on the property tax, and the lack of authority to
deal with regional, State, and national trends and policies
beyond its control are but a few of the obstacles to dealing
- 3 -
with environmental problems at this level. The situation is
further complicated by the many special purpose districts
within the State, which, in their zeal to accomplish their
limited objectives, operate independently of any compre-
hensive local or regional policy. At the same time, State
agencies are primarily oriented to their singular objectives,
which also often conflict with environmental policy goals.
Even the State anti-pollution agencies are too narrowly
constituted to accomplish what needs to be done, while other
pollution problem areas have yet to be touched by regulatory
activities at the State level.
THE SOLUTION: A COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE MECHANISM
At a Council hearing in San Diego one witness, a nationally known
landscape architect, attributed the State's environmental
dilemma to the fact that "No one has been tending the store."
As he then put it, "There has been no store." The same
theme was repeated at almost every hearing. This is not to
say that significant efforts have not been made in individual
areas of environmental quality; but a stronger, more compre-
hensive approach is needed. It is time to create an appropriate
State and regional mechanism with adequate powers to deal
effectively with statewide pollution problems of air, water,
solid waste, land use, population growth, and other environ-
mental issues in an integrated manner. The Environmental
Quality Board proposed by the Council could respond to this
need.
IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR METROPOLITAN CRISIS AREAS
The major thrust of this report is toward the development of
governmental mechanisms to deal with environmental problems
at the State and regional level in the most comprehensive
manner. However, the acuteness of California's environmental
crisis does not allow us to stop here. There are too many
critical areas throughout the State where other immediate
action is needed. While smog from our metropolitan areas
covers large portions of the State, conditions within these
urban centers have become even more deplorable. Los Angeles
experienced nine smog alerts this past summer, which had not
been the case since 1956. Thus, all of the technological
improvements seem to have been to little avail. Only a few
years ago there were still areas left in the South Coast
Basin where the air quality was better than at the core.
Riverside was such an area. This is no longer the case.
During a recent study session of the Council's Air Quality
Committee, members were appalled to learn that last summer
there was not a single day in Riverside that the peak level
of oxidants was low enough to approach a safe level for
humans, with the average level tripling safe limits. No
wonder the Riverside County Medical Association has declared
the area to be in "an almost constant state of emergency".
- 4 -
The Environmental Quality Board mentioned previously, were it
in existence today, would be the vehicle for dealing with
these immediate problems. However, they cannot wait for such
a mechanism to become operational. It is to this question
that two additional recommendations are addressed. The
first requests that the. Legislature, by concurrent resolution,
direct the Air Resources Board to perform necessary studies
to determine measures to bring about immediate and continuing
relief to the critical air pollution problem that exists in
the San Francisco Bay and South Coast Basins. The second
requests the Legislature, also by concurrent resolution, to
direct the Department of Public Health to perform necesssry
studies to determine the natural carrying capacities for
these same two basins.
THE GROWTH ETHIC
Last year's progress report described the other pollution
elements contributing to the "moribund Los Angeles region."
Again this year we find conditions worsened, not only there
but in the San Francisco Bay Area as well. In these critical
air basins we have to change our course drastically, and do
SO now. We simply have to slow down our growth and stabilize
the population of these areas according to their carrying
capacities. This may be hard to accomplish, for growth has
served us well in this country since its beginnings. But
the harsh reality is that unrestrained growth and environmental
quality have become incompatible in California's metropolitan
regions.
During the past year there has been a growing public recog-
nition that the growth ethic must be laid to rest. For many
this is a difficult concept to accept. After all, it is not
easy to suddenly reverse a set of lifetime values and attitudes.
But our metropolitan regions are being progressively and
irreversibly destroyed, and at such a rapid rate that only
the strongest of measures will be capable of saving them.
Action is the only alternative, and that action must be taken
now.
- 5 -
DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
The Need for a New Approach:
The primary issues related to the heavy toll that is being
taken on the State's environment are, quite clearly, population
growth and land use. Present mechanisms and policies are not
suited to deal with these basic factors which underlie our
most serious environmental problems. It is evident that new
approaches must be instituted which can deal with these issues
in the most comprehensive manner. The State is in need of an
effective governmental organization not only to regulate
pollution but also to preserve open space, protect critical
ecological areas, and redirect, phase and, where necessary,
limit growth to a level consistent with reasonable health
standards and a livable environment. The inevitability and
desirability of unrestrained population growth must be
challenged. To attack this question, new and strong State
and regional action will be necessary.
Coordination Is Not Enough:
If any meaningful long - or even short range - solutions to
many of our resource and environmental problems are to be
developed, they must reflect a broader, more comprehensive
set of policies covering future land use, population distri-
bution, and urbanization within our State. Coordination of
activities is not enough. In fact under the present structure
it is questionable whether, even among the best-intentioned
people, coordination is even possible. There are within
State government 24 departments which claim responsibility
in one degree or another for more than 120 functions related
to environmental quality. Although many of these efforts are
highly effective, seldom are they carried out in the name of
a common policy. Often these functions compete with and
counteract one another. Often they set the stage for other
actions, presently outside the jurisdiction of State government,
which further degrade the environment.
Many departments in State government have statutory responsi-
bility for some aspect of our natural environment. In most
instances this responsibility is limited to anticipating and
responding to existing trends, and does not effectively
include influencing these trends. There have been a few
examples of effective interdepartmental efforts, such as the
Power Plant Siting Committee and the Joint Resources-Highways
Committee. However, these efforts are directed to only a
small fraction of the overall problem and are obviously
limited in terms of matters involving competing objectives.
- 6 -
A properly structured State body should be able to review and
reject or approve projects and activities not only in terms of
their immediate environmental impact but also in relation to
their broad influence on urban expansion and population growth.
Certainly the State Highway and Public Utilities Commissions
are not geared to properly deal with these issues nor have they
been given that responsibility.
There are also inadequacies at the local and regional levels.
Although legislation is put forth from time to time for
strengthening and supporting local programs, no specific
mechanisms have been developed for rationalizing the present
myriad of jurisdictions or for reconciling the conflicting
interests in environmental control at this level.
An Environmental Management Structure:
The point is that the problem is not litter, nor power plants,
nor waste treatment and disposal - nor even the urban ghetto.
The problem is the lack of a management structure which can
effectively and efficiently solve today's individual problems
in relation to an overall long-range plan. The fragmented
approach which government at all levels has historically taken
must give way to an integrated and well-managed direct attack.
The one encouraging effort in the field of environmental quality
is the State-regional water resource management structure.
In this the State has its first real resource and environmental
management system in the form of the State Water Resources
Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control
Boards. The Council has used this approach as the model on
which to base its recommendation for the establishment of an
Environmental Quality Board.
The State Air Resources Board has accomplished a great deal,
considering its short life span. However, its management
structure, as provided for in existing statutes, is inadequate
for long term resolution of the air quality problem. One
such inadequacy is the lack of clear definition of the
relationship between the Air Resources Board and the local
Air Pollution Control Districts -- the responsibilities for
regulation of vehicular sources as opposed to stationary
sources.
The State Department of Public Health is uniquely qualified
to deal with environmental problems. However, historically
it has been relegated to the role of academic advisor.
Although the Department has produced several significant
studies and recommendations on various aspects of the environ-
ment, it is virtually powerless to take any corrective action
until people start getting sick, which is a little late.
During its 1970 session the State Legislature created the
Office of Planning and Research. This office is charged with
- 7 -
preparing a comprehensive land use policy and reviewing State
activities and projects for compliance with statewide environ-
mental goals. This is a most essential effort and should be
given the highest priority. However, the fact remains that
there is no entity within the State government that can
effectively deal with environmental problems in a comprehensive
way or in a manner that can insure results at the regional
level in terms of the critical question of urban growth and
the resulting environmental degradation.
The Time Is Now:
Environmental concern has come of age, and the need for
mechanisms for unified environmental control has become evident.
In 1970 the Federal Government created an Environmental
Protection Agency responsible for regulation of water quality,
air pollution, pesticides, solid waste, and nuclear radiation.
Within the last two years the states of Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Washington have created unified environmental
protection agencies. Maine and Oregon have created boards with
wide environmental powers. Hawaii has adopted legislation
permitting unified environmental responsibility. Maine and
Vermont have created mechanisms for protecting land use on a
statewide basis. The Council has studied each of these laws
as potential models for California.
The Environmental Quality Study Council was charged with making
recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on, among
other things, "governmental mechanisms
for the coordinated
protection, management, and improvement of California's
physical environment." After almost two years of study, the
Council can now report on this portion of its task.
We live in one environment. The various problems of pollution
and of ecological damage within that environment all bear on
one another. It is essential that California create a govern-
mental mechanism enabling it to deal with environmental
problems in the most comprehensive manner possible.
The Organization:
The Council therefore proposes creation of an Environmental
Quality Board - an organization patterned largely on the
present water quality regulatory system. After considering
the various State and Federal mechanisms for unified environ-
mental control, the Council has concluded that California's
own Water Resources Control Board with its Regional Water Quality
Control Boards affords both a successful and a familiar model.
The legislation which governs those boards, the Porter-Cologne
Act, is generally recognized as creating an excellent environ-
me tal management system. For reasons of standing within State
administration, the Council recommends that the Environmental
Quality Board be independent of any agency and report directly
to the Governor.
- 8 -
The Board:
The Environmental Quality Board would consist of seven full-
time and environmentally qualified persons, appointed by the
Governor, who would also select the chairman from among the
Board. The Board, in addition to setting statewide environ-
mental policy, would act as an appellate body to review the
decisions of the regional boards and to resolve conflicts
between competing environmental values. Regional Environ-
mental Quality Boards would operate in eight regions. There
are at present nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
This number would be reduced to eight if all that area within
the South Coast Basin were in the same region. There are
eleven California Air Basins. While the water and air basins
are not identical, their contours are sufficiently proximate
to afford a rational basis for regional environmental
management.
Regional Boards:
Each regional board would be composed of five environmentally
qualified, full-time persons. Regional board members would
be residents of the regions they serve. They too would be
appointed by the Governor, who would also select their chair-
men from among them. The Council feels that this structure
is a workable one, adaptable to different regions of the State.
It recognizes, however, that several options are available and
have been proposed regarding the composition of regional boards
and that technical expertise must be balanced with public
accountability in relationship to particular regional needs.
Therefore, provision should be made for each region, on its
own initiative, to submit to the Legislature alternative
proposals for the permanent makeup of its regional board.
Areas Regulated:
Within the Environmental Quality Board various departments would
regulate the different environmental fields. Departmental staffs
would make routine decisions subject to appeal to the Board.
The Board would assume regulatory responsibilities over water,
air, solid waste, nuclear radiation, noise, pesticides, and to
a more limited degree, land use.
Water Quality - The present system of regulation is a good one
and would be transferred largely intact to the Environmental
Quality Board.
Air Quality - In this field the Environmental Quality Board would
absorb the functions of the State Air Resources Board and of the
existing Air Pollution Control Districts. This consolidation
would obviate the present dichotomy between State enforcement
of vehicular emissions and local regulation of stationary sources,
which has hampered effective control of air pollution.
- 9 -
Solid Waste - At present there is no statewide regulation in
the management of solid waste. For reasons both of environ-
mental protection and of Federal grant availability, it is
desirable that the regulation of solid waste commence
immediately and become part of the Environmental Quality
Board when it is created.
Noise, Pesticides, and Nuclear Radiation - Regulatory programs
would be included in the new organization. The Board would
also pass upon the environmental aspects of power plant siting
through a permit system.
Land Use - This basic element has been a common thread running
through practically all of the Council's activities and emerges
as the key to the future environmental quality of the State.
Time and time again recommendations are made that the State
must play a stronger role, using all available resources, in
guiding physical development. According to the 1970 report of
the Assembly Select Committee on Environmental Quality, "the
demand placed on California's resources by an increasing
population has resulted in the degradation of our environment.
The State must play a new role in land use, urban growth, and
population distribution."
Land use is an area where local interests have a deep and
traditional involvement. While respecting that involvement
and while also noting Presidential support for a national
land use plan, the Council believes that California itself
must play an active part in meeting this emerging need. The
State role would involve adoption by the Environmental Quality
Board of a State land use policy and a conservation and develop-
ment plan, in consultation with regional boards, concerned
Federal, State, and local agencies, and the public. Each
regional board, working with local governments and the public,
would then adopt a regional plan subject to review by the
State board. Statutory direction to the State and regional
boards would require different treatment of at least three
categories:
1. Certain limited portions of the State are of such
importance to all the people of California that a valid
State interest lies in their protection. Examples would
include the coastline and certain mountain and prime
agricultural areas. In such cases the appropriate
regional board would use a permit system for proposed
development, patterned on the procedure of the successful
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
In this regard it is recommended that the act creating
the Environmental Quality Board require an interim
moratorium on coastline development pending preparation
and adoption of the final plans.
2. A second special category would include those portions
of the State where the growth of population has exceeded
- 10 -
or is in danger of exceeding the resources, particularly
air, which can support a healthy and decent existence. In
such cases the plans would include provisions for determining
the location and rate of growth by incentives and dis-
incentives.
3. The third category is the balance of the State. In this
case the Environmental Quality Board would adopt general
criteria constituting a framework within which local
governments would be free to control land use as presently
practiced.
Those charged with planning what is environmentally desirable
should be divorced from line responsibility but not totally
removed from the reality of government. For this reason, the
planning function should occupy a separate department within
the jurisdiction of the Board and should absorb the duties of
the present Office of Planning and Research.
Control of Other Governmental Entities:
Government itself, by its actions and its permits, in some
instances degrades the environment. Single-purpose agencies
as now structured tend to show more concern for the achievement
of those single purposes than for their effect upon the environ-
ment. The Council therefore proposes that the Board be empowered
to halt projects which are environmentally destructive and to
insure compliance with the Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
The past session of the Legislature enacted the Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, which provides for environmental impact
reports on government actions significantly affecting the
environment. The Act omitted any means of reviewing these
reports and of insuring agency compliance. The Council
recommends that this defect be remedied by empowering the
Board to review and remand reports not in compliance with
law and to bar projects which fail to comply with the Act.
The Environmental Quality Act should also be improved by
borrowing some of the provisions of its Federal counterpart,
the National Environmental Policy Act.
Citizen Involvement and Standing to Sue:
Continued citizen involvement in the battle to preserve and
enhance California's environment is not only desirable but
necessary. For this reason the Council recommends two steps
to insure such involvement: the creation of an Environmental
Quality Citizens Council; and standing for citizens to sue in
behalf of the environment.
The Environmental Quality Citizens Council would succeed the
present Environmental Quality Council and inherit its role of
- 11 -
constructive environmental critic and of conduit of information
and concern from citizens to government and from government to
citizens. The Council would be composed of seven public members
appointed by the Governor, two by the Speaker of the Assembly,
and two by the Senate Rules Committee. It would report to the
Governor, the Legislature, and to the Chairman of the Environ-
mental Quality Board. The Environmental Quality Citizens
Council would receive administrative support from the Board,
but would retain that independence essential to its effective
functioning. It would retain the present Environmental Quality
Study Council's authority to hold public hearings and to make
recommendations.
While administrative machinery is essential to proper environ-
mental management, there can be no substitute for the right of
each citizen to sue to preserve his environment. Such rights
insure that public servants remain alert to public interest.
The Council therefore proposes that the Act creating the
Environmental Quality Board also include standing for citizens
to sue to halt activities detrimental to their environment.
A Board VS. Department:
The Council's primary objective in proposing a high level
environmental protection body is to bring about an effective
means at the State and regional levels of planning and
regulating the basic elements of environmental quality in the
most comprehensive manner.
It was clear that such an organization should not include
functions of a developmental nature which the entity itself
would be required to evaluate and regulate. It was also clear
that it must not be organized in a way that would significantly
reduce the status and visibility of current efforts. The
Council did not, for example, seriously consider placing this
task at a departmental level. Since such a proposal would
actually downgrade certain ongoing regulatory functions from
board to division status, the Council concluded that this
approach would have limited impact and be viewed as a step
backward, when the thrust quite obviously needs to be in the
opposite direction.
For any governmental entity to deal most effectively with the
problems at hand, it must have sufficient stature within State
government to cut across organizational lines in the compre-
hensive and coordinated regulation of the many competing
interests and activities which have significant bearing on
the future environmental quality of the State. The Environ-
mental Quality Board proposed is the most appropriate mechanism
for meeting these objectives.
- 12 -
What Will Be Different under the New Structure:
The Council fully recognizes the fact that organization alone
will not resolve the State's environmental problems. However,
the appropriate organization and the laws that create it can
serve as the foundation for the constructive planning and
action so desperately needed.
The new structure would be able to plan and regulate in a
comprehensive manner on the basis of what is environmentally
sound. It would provide the mechanism for giving environ-
mental matters proper standing in the decision-making process.
It would provide a vehicle to guide, phase, and, if and when
necessary, limit development in accordance with a State land
use plan and policy. It would have the power to protect open
space, the coastline, and other critical areas of regional and
statewide interest. It would provide for a unified approach
to management of air and water resources, solid waste, noise,
pesticides, and nuclear radiation, taking int account the
special environmental characteristics of a given region. It
would provide citizens' standing to sue to protect the
environment.
One additional advantage would result from the creation of an
Environmental Quality Board as a unifying factor. It would
give new visibility to that part of government directly
responsible for environmental quality. Few people, even those
generally well informed, can identify the State or regional
bodies that regulate water quality, air quality, radiation
exposure, or emissions from fossil-fueled power plants.
People know of the existence of Air Pollution Control Districts,
but the fact that they are county (or in one case, regional)
agencies which regulate stationary sources while a State Air
Resources Board regulates vehicular sources is unknown to
most people. People are concerned, but they don't know who
is responsible. A focus of environmental responsibility
would do a great deal to dispel the public sense of helpless-
ness and frustration. Perhaps this is what President Nixon
was referring to in his recent "State of the Union" message,
when he stated that there is a need to "organize around the
great purposes of government" so that "when we have a problem
we will know where to go -- and the department will have the
authority and resources to do something about it."
NECESSARY IMMEDIATE ACTION
The legislation recommended above, even if adopted during this
year's legislative session, would require a certain amount of
lead time to put into effect. Such a time lag is unacceptable
to the environmental quality of certain regions and the health
of many of the people who reside therein. With this in mind the
Co ncil recommends to the Legislature that certain immediate
actions be taken.
- 13 -
An Emergency Air Quality Measure:
The Technical Advisory Committee of the State Air Resources
Board, in a report of September 1970, has recommended air quality
standards, based on preservation of health, which presently
are frequently exceeded in the State's most populous regions.
This committee has further stated that in some instances
standards which are designed to assure freedom from injury to
health cannot be attained by the application of technical
methods available now or in the foreseeable future.
The report states in part that:
"In some instances the standards which are designed to
assure freedom from injury to health cannot be attained
by the application of technical methods available now
or in the foreseeable future. This incompatibility can
be resolved only by drastic changes of life patterns in
the most heavily populated areas. Each air basin has a
limited amount of air in which to dilute its pollutant
emissions; this sets a finite limit to the pollutants
which can be emitted in this air basin. When this
limit is approached, further production of pollutants
must be stopped by whatever means are available not
excluding limitation of population and economic growth
within the area."
In response to this critical situation the Council recommends
that the Legislature by concurrent resolution (Appendix A)
direct the Air Resources Board to conduct intensive studies to
determine means of bringing the earliest possible emergency
relief to the most critical air basins, and to determine what
long-term continuing measures are necessary to deal with air
pollution imperiling health which, according to the Technical
Advisory Committee of the Air Resources Board, cannot be
reduced to safe levels by existing or foreseeable technical
methods, and to report its findings to the Legislature by
January 1, 1972.
Earliest Possible Relief:
In studying means of bringing the earliest possible relief
where this emergency condition exists, the Board should consider
but not be limited to: (1) compulsory annual inspection of
motor vehicles; (2) emergency regulation of the composition
of fuels; (3) standardization of methods of air pollution
measurement; (4) standardization of smog alert levels;
(5) limitation of some or all combustion uses of fossil fuels
during severe smog alert periods; (6) termination of variances
for stationary sources which have been issued by local air
pollution control districts; and (7) removal of the present
statutory limit of $65 per emission device for used motor
vehicles.
- 14 -
Long Term Measures:
In considering measures necessary to meet recommended air quality
standards on a long term basis the Board should include, but not
be limited to: (1) limitation of the number and use of auto-
mobiles, trucks, and aircraft in the affected area, by rationing
systems, taxation, or other means; (2) reduction of emissions
from these sources to levels below those now proposed; (3)
rendering of all industries and fossil-fueled power plants in
the affected area emission-free; (4) development of a compre-
hensive non-polluting urban transport system; (5) limitation
of population growth in the affected area by restriction of
subdivision, residential, commercial, and other urban expansion;
(6) limitation of commercial and industrial growth to zero-
emission facilities; (7) restriction of emissions from commercial,
agricultural, domestic, and recreational sources; and (8) develop-
ment of clean sources of energy.
This resolution would also ask the Board to determine implemen-
tation plans, including control measures and timetables for all,
or for any combination of these and any other measures.
The first seven of this latter group of proposed measures were
themselves suggested in the same report of the Technical Advisory
Committee of the Air Resources Board mentioned earlier. The
impact of some of these requirements staggers the imagination.
They stem, according to the report, "from the concept that each
basin has a limited resource of air, into which the emission of
a specific maximum quantity of particulates, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons can be permitted if the air
quality standards are to be met, and maintained."
Basin Carrying Capacity: There Is a Limit
Critical to the issue of environmental quality is our ability
to deal with questions of urban growth and resource management
at the basin level. In fact, in reviewing the State's environ-
mental condition, it is clear that strong action will be
necessary if certain regions within the State are to remain
suitable for habitation.
A critical state of clear and present danger to the health and
welfare of the population of the more congested metropolitan
regions now exists. Federal, State, and local government
actions have fostered this condition by seeking to accommodate
natural population increases rather than planning and directing
development in close relationship to existing environmental
carrying capacity. There is a limit to the amount of growth
that can be accommodated under present methods of development.
Preoccupation with growth on the urban periphery has resulted
in neglect of the urban core. Migration of tax resources to
new suburbs has brought a severe decline in the quality of
- 15 and
central city educational services. Housing stocks have been
allowed to deteriorate to substandard levels. Immigration of
low income population to these areas has brought radical
increases in welfare costs, and increases in case loads threaten
to overload and collapse the system of criminal justice.
Although these subjects are not within the purview of the
Council, they are a clear indication that the natural environ-
ment is not the only aspect of urban life which is suffering
from our present attitudes and practices regarding growth and
development.
Regional planning and regulation based on an established
carrying capacity for a particular basin, with provision for
the preservation of open space and natural resources and for
phased rather than scattered and premature development is
desperately needed. Such a charge will be of utmost priority
to the proposed Regional Environmental Quality Boards. However,
in the case of our most critical air basins, we are in need of
immediate answers and actions.
Population Concentration and Public Health:
Continuing concentration of population in our most heavily
urbanized regions has caused depletion of vital resources beyond
the capacity of natural processes to restore them. In some
instances the technical methods available now or in the fore-
seeable future are insufficient to restore levels of quality
which will assure freedom from injury to health. So long as
the technical methods remain unavailable, the natural carrying
capacities of these urbanized regions must. be regarded as
principal criteria in the establishment of standards for the
maintenance of public health.
Yet, there is presently an insufficient understanding of all
factors contributing to, and interacting in, the depletion of
vital natural resources and their combined impact on public
health. The Council therefore recommends that the Legislature,
by concurrent resolution (Appendix B), direct the Department
of Public Health to conduct a study of the San Francisco Bay
and the South Coast Basins to determine, from a public health
standpoint, their natural carrying capacities. In conducting
this study the Department should consider but not be limited to
the following factors: (1) the relationship of air, water, and
land pollution patterns within the regions and the regions'
natural carrying capacities; (2) the relationship of population
growth and natural carrying capacity; (3) the relationship of
population distribution within the regions and the regions'
natural carrying capacities; (4) the relationship of land use
patterns within the regions and the regions' natural carrying
capacities; (5) the relationship of circulation patterns
within the regions and the regions' natural carrying capacities;
and (6) the interrelations of any or all of these as they may
affect natural carrying capacity.
- 16 -
Critical Air Basins: What Are Their Population Limits?
Such a study should include proposals for adequate regulation
of those factors which it has shown as threatening or exceeding
the natural carrying capacities as therein determined. Further,
such study should produce recommendations as to maximum
permissible population figures for each region, based on the
combined relationships of current factors and their impact on
natural capacities. The resolution asking for this study would
direct the department to report its findings and recommendations
to the Legislature no later than January 1, 1972.
OTHER CRITICAL ISSUES
Although the Council has devoted this report to governmental
structure and critical basin issues, there are other measures
in need of mention whose implementation will greatly improve
the State's position in the fight against environmental
degradation.
State Planning:
Strong support in terms of funds and commitment must be put
behind the charge given the new State Office of Planning and
Research. The legislation creating this office gives high
priority to the development of a State land use policy.
Because this is so critical to the future environmental quality
of the State, every effort must be made by the Governor and
the Legislature, whether administered through the Governor's
Office or the Environmental Quality Board, to see that this
important assignment is carried out.
Coastline Protection:
Another statewide, even nationwide, land use issue is the
future of our valuable coastline. To protect it from further
undesirable development a mechanism must be developed to plan
and regulate the use of this important State resource. The
Council will actively support legislation proposed in this
regard, and further suggests that an interim moratorium be
imposed during the time that a coastline plan is being formu-
lated. The Council would strongly recommend, however, that the
mechanism created be designed to be compatible with and tie
into the Environmental Quality Board when established.
Statewide Open Space Acquisition and Preservation:
Essential to the implementation of a land use policy is a
massive open space acquisition program on a statewide level.
The legislation establishing such a program should be along
the lines of the 1964 Bond Act and should be directed at
preserving important open space areas in and near urban
centers.
- 17 -
The Council recognizes of course that there are obvious
financial limitations to the direct purchase method of
preserving open space. Other measures, such as the several
excellent proposals outlined in the February 1970 final
report of the Joint Committee on Open Space, should be
pursued.
Certainly measures that encourage urbanization should be
carefully examined. The Council strongly supports, for
example, assessment practices which reflect the actual
rather than the highest potential use. One-time change-in-
use taxes for open space lands, particularly where prime
agricultural or flood plain lands are involved, should also
be considered.
The Council also seriously questions the validity of the
present policy of subsidizing the urbanization of flood
plain lands through the use of general taxpayers funds for
the construction of flood control improvements. The Council
intends to report to the Legislature later in the session on
the equity and long-range environmental impact of such a
policy.
Recreational and Second Home Developments:
Another critical statewide land use issue is the proliferation
of recreational and second home developments. The ultimate
answer to this question is the development of a State land
use policy and a mechanism to insure that it is carried out
at the local level. This matter would come naturally within
the responsibility of the Environmental Quality Board and its
regional boards. However, action of an immediate nature which
will combat the indiscriminate and premature subdividing of
unpopulated lands is urgently needed. Legislation should be
adopted to require cities and counties, before approving such
developments, to make findings, based on appropriate studies
and reports, that a particular project is environmentally
sound, is in fact needed, and conforms to an approved general
plan containing the open space and conservation elements
mandated by the 1970 Legislature. The State should carefully
monitor the procedures followed in evaluating these projects
and provide technical assistance where needed.
Gas Tax Diversion:
Directly related to our most serious pollution problems is
our current method of transportation. To save the landscape
and clean the skies, the diversion of gas tax funds, by what-
ever means, to develop alternate modes of transportation,
should once again be of the highest legislative priority.
We can no longer defend the sanctity of this revenue source
when it continues to expand and promote the single form of
transportation that so devastates the environment.
- 18 -
Public Information:
Certainly no discussion of environmental problems would be
complete without mention of the source of the problem -- our
affluent society. Our demand upon the resources has reached
an almost immeasurable level, and our capacity to generate
waste is equally as staggering. We have talked about the
threat of unrestrained population growth. However, continued
increases in our resource demands per capita may well be a
far more serious problem.
The vast majority of the public still believes that our
resources are limitless and our environment indestructible.
While a flip of the switch turns on the electric can opener,
very few people realize that the same switch depletes our
vanishing oil reserves and pollutes our air. It is time
they were told the truth, for without the knowledgeable
support of the public, no institution, government or other-
wise, will really solve the problem.
- 19 -
COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
THE COUNCIL'S SECOND YEAR
The Search for Long Range Solutions; Council Hearings:
Since the first progress report was published in February 1970,
the Environmental Quality Study Council has concentrated on
developing long-range solutions to California's environmental
ills. In working toward the development of this comprehensive
plan of attack the Council has relied on ten general meetings,
eight public hearings, nine committee study sessions, and
extensive staff work. Recognized as a crucial determinant of
environmental quality, the question of land use has dominated
the Council's fact-finding activities during 1970. Hearings
dealing with land use in one degree or another were held in
Livermore, San Diego, Santa Rosa, Fresno, and San Francisco.
Other hearings were directed at obtaining information from
special groups, such as city and county governments (Millbrae),
the automobile and petroleum industries (Los Angeles), and
environmentally concerned youth (Sacramento).
Committee Activities:
The Land Use and Air Quality Committees each held several
study sessions at which leaders of State and local conservation
groups and environmental professionals were invited. These
were held in San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and
Riverside, to enable and encourage the broadest possible
participation from all areas of the State.
The Noise Abatement Committee met and worked with the Council's
Scientific Advisory Group on Noise; and the Water Resources
Committee had meetings with appropriate State agencies,
including the Water Resources Control Board. Individual
members of these committees were also very helpful in providing
information for and participating in the other activities of
the Council, particularly in the field of land use. A Solid
Waste Management Committee was formed during the year and met
with business interests, cities and counties, sanitation
districts, State agencies, and various other concerned parties
in seeking solutions for dealing with this important problem.
Staff Activities:
The Council staff consulted regularly with, and evaluated
material and studies developed by, State agencies, legislative
committees, environmental experts, and representatives of
interested civic and professional organizations. A major
effort of the staff was the completion of an inventory of
State environmental control activities and their costs.
- 20 -
This inventory (Appendix F), which was the first such effort
made at State level, provided basic information on over 120
environmental activities and responsibilities being conducted
by some 24 State departments, agencies, boards, and commissions.
It has been of great assistance to the Council in analyzing
gaps and overlaps in the State's environmental effort, and in
determining what alternate types of governmental organizations
or mechanisms might be most appropriate. The staff has also
reviewed various mechanisms, proposed and on-going, relating
to local and regional efforts in the field of environmental
quality.
The development of an appropriate governmental mechanism for
the handling of environmental problems was specifically
requested of the Council by its enabling legislation and is
critical to any meaningful and workable approach to the
development of long-range solutions. In this regard the
Council was greatly assisted by the extensive data compiled
by Deputy Attorney General Nicholas C. Yost, on environmental
organizational efforts of other states as well as the Federal
Government.
Recommendations for Immediate Action:
Despite its search for more basic solutions to the State's
environmental quality problems, the Council did not abandon
its concern for those issues in need of immediate action.
San Diego:
In the San Diego hearing, held February 13, 1970, the Council's
interest was the preservation of open space, particularly
along the coastline. A specific issue at stake, and highlighted
by the Council's hearing, was the prehistoric Torrey Pines
threatened by the developer's bulldozer. Other issues of
Council concern included San Diego's rapidly disappearing
canyons and lagoons. The Council sought to ascertain: what
the obstacles are to setting aside sufficient open space in
growing areas throughout the State; how those obstacles may be
overcome; and what the State's role should be in this matter.
The Council was pleased to note that later in the legislative
session the State announced the purchase of all remaining
important stands of Torrey Pines in San Diego County. This
purchase was financed by State funds, matching sizeable private
donations collected by concerned local citizens.
Livermore:
At the Livermore hearing held March 7, 1970, the Council tackled
the problem of rapidly deteriorating air quality conditions in
relationship to urban growth, both within the area itself as
well as in adjacent areas. Livermore residents were deeply
- 21 -
concerned about further deterioration of their air shed by the
expansion of transportation facilities in this already badly
polluted valley. Another concern was the impact of intensified
urbanization of the San Francisco Bay area on Livermore air
quality, particularly since several adjacent counties ranked
low in both standards and enforcement. A resolution passed by
the Council after the Livermore hearing urged the inclusion of
Napa, Solano, and Sonoma Counties in the Bay Area Air Pollution
Control District, since these provide a source of some of the
pollution in the Livermore-Amador Valley. This resolution was
in support of legislation (AB 479), introduced by Assemblyman
John Knox, which has since been signed into law. The Livermore
hearing touched on some of the classic problems of urban growth.
The Livermore-Amador Valley still contains a substantial amount
of undeveloped land; yet it is beginning to reach air pollution
levels common to the Los Angeles Basin. Thus the hearing
provided a strong basis for carrying capacity studies recommended
in this report.
Santa Rosa:
A proposed gravel dredging operation at the mouth of the Russian
River at Jenner was the subject of another of the Council's
hearings, in April. This dredging operation appeared likely
to substantially and irrevocably alter the ecology and aesthetics
of a unique river-coastal area. The Council's hearing led to
the adoption of a resolution requesting that the Sonoma County
Board of Supervisors, the Corps of Engineers, and other affected
State and Federal agencies withhold approval of any applications
for major developments at the mouth of the Russian River until
such time as the then pending coastline legislation could be
adopted. This resolution was followed by a wire to the Secretary
of Defense, the U. S. Army. Corps of Engineers, and the members
of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, requesting
hearings pursuant to the Corps' regulations and the completion
of the necessary environmental impact reports required by the
National Environmental Policy Act.
The State Water Resources Control Board, consistent with its
on-going and aggressive efforts to protect and improve water
quality, has since directed the Regional Water Quality Control
Board with jurisdiction in the Jenner area to withhold issuance
of any discharge permit. This action is to remain in force
until studies of the effects of the dredging operation on
water quality and siltation are completed and hearings held
on the findings. The decision of the Board left the Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors little choice but to turn down the
request to conduct the controversial dredging operation.
The Santa Rosa hearing also resulted in a unanimous resolution
ca'ling upon the Governor and the Legislature to create a
statewide coastal commission to comprehensively plan and
- 22 -
protect California's fragile coastal environment and to properly
guide its growth. The resolution specifically called for a
commission, with regional sub-units, to be charged with super-
vising development until such a plan could take effect.
Although coastline legislation was not adopted last year, the
critical nature of this irreplaceable resource makes the
creation of such a mechanism a matter of high priority in this
legislative session.
OTHER HEARINGS:
There were several other hearings held by the Council which
did not deal with issues immediately at hand but which were
most useful in formulating long-range recommendations.
Millbrae:
The purpose of this hearing, held in May 1970, was to discuss
with representatives of cities and counties environmental
programs being conducted and problems being encountered at
the local level. It was reported at this hearing that many
local agencies had for some time been working to improve the
environment in such areas as solid waste handling, city
beautification, open space preservation, and sewage treatment.
It was indicated, however, that their efforts are limited by
lack of funds and of the authority to deal with questions of
a regional nature. And, of course, there is no control at
this level over the critical matters of population growth and
distribution or a mechanism for insuring that statewide
objectives, when and if developed, are adhered to.
Although questions arise as to the extent to which direct State
involvement is necessary, it was made clear, even from the
standpoint of local officials, that present policies and
mechanisms are not adequate to match the task and that strong
State commitments and new policies and partnerships are needed.
Los Angeles:
Also in May of 1970 the Council held a hearing in Los Angeles
to discuss with representatives of the automobile and petroleum
industries progress being made in combatting emissions from
vehicular sources. The Council was surprised to learn that,
although some progress is being made in terms of developing
devices for the individual automobile sufficient to reduce smog
levels between now and 1985, new population growth would soon
offset these advances and air quality would again reach present
levels.
This hearing, and the September report of the Technical Advisory
Committee of the Air Resources Board, were instrumental in
convincing the Council that new approaches to transportation,
- 23 -
land use, and population growth in relation to all other aspects
of environmental quality are vitally needed.
Fresno and San Francisco:
Although almost every hearing held by the Council has been in
some way related to the critical issue of land use, two hearings
dealt specifically with this subject. The first was held in
June 1970, in Fresno, on the subject of population distribution
and land use capability. The second was held in San Francisco
the following month, on the role of large developers and the
problem of premature subdivisions. Both of these hearings
clearly demonstrated the need for a State land use policy and
mechanisms and procedures to insure that such a policy is
carried out at the regional and local levels.
Youth and the Environment:
In November 1970, in Sacramento, the Council held a hearing
with leaders of various student environmental organizations
from college and university campuses throughout the State.
Testimony and recommendations were received on such subjects
as water development, land use and coastline management, air
quality, solid waste, conservation education, environmental
law, community involvement, nuclear power, wildlife protection,
and transportation.
The Council was most impressed with the sincere interest of
the students involved and the quality of their recommendations.
Many of their thoughts have influenced the recommendations in
this report or will be the subject of the Council's final
report.
FURTHER RESULTS FROM THE COUNCIL'S FIRST YEAR:
Palm Springs:
The Council's 1969 hearings continued to produce favorable
environmental results, Several developments occurred regarding
the Council's Palm Springs hearing. This hearing, held at
the request of the city, had been prompted by a proposal to
locate two oil refineries in the San Gorgonio Pass, at the
neck of the Coachella Valley. The Council's main concern was
to ascertain how to protect a unique air basin, as yet
relatively free of pollution, from a decision-making process
taking place outside the principally affected area. The
Clinton Oil Company, which had been planning to build one of
these refineries in Beaumont, has since decided to abandon
its construction plans. The other planned refinery, for nearby
Banning, also appears to have been abandoned.
The most encouraging result, however, was action taken by the
Riverside County Board of Supervisors to permanently protect
- 24 -
the County from major stationary air pollution sources. In
early 1970, the Board passed an ordinance effectively banning
oil refineries and power plants from the western two-thirds of
the County. The Board also showed a great deal of initiative
in calling together boards of supervisors from adjacent counties
to establish a more effective regional approach to air pollution
control. In this case the Council acted as a catalyst toward
bringing about needed change.
Inglewood:
In September 1969 the Council's Noise Abatement Committee held
a hearing in Inglewood to probe ways in which noise problems
around existing airports might be abated. The hearing resulted
in a Council resolution requesting the Attorney General to join
the City of Inglewood in a lawsuit to reduce unnecessarily
noisy operations at Los Angeles International Airport. In
July 1970 the Attorney General, responding to the Council's
resolution, filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief to support the
City of Inglewood in its anti-noise efforts. The Council's
action in this regard is particularly significant because this
is the first time the State of California has become involved
in a lawsuit to combat noise pollution.
Palmdale:
The Council's Noise Abatement Committee held a hearing in
Palmdale in November 1969 on the environmental impact of the
proposed Palmdale Intercontinental Airport. As a result of this
hearing the Council adopted a resolution requesting that the
State Department of Aeronautics rescind its previous approval
of the airport and reopen the matter in order to more properly
consider the environmental impact of this project. The
Department rejected the Council's recommendation. Yet, testimony
at the hearing indicated that neither the Department nor the
Federal Aviation Agency had, in fact, considered environmental
factors. In February 1970, the Noise Abatement Committee
appealed by wire to both the Secretary of the Interior and
the Secretary of Transportation to draw their attention to
the matter and to insure that provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act would be adhered to. This action
delayed federal approval of the project until what was purported
to be an environmental impact report was prepared.
The atmosphere created by the Council's actions proved bene-
ficial in stimulating federal interest in the funding of a
major planning study of the Antelope Valley. This study, which
is to be coordinated by the Southern California Association of
Governments, is to provide further guidelines as to how a major
airport can be harmoniously integrated into an area as yet
undeveloped. This "test tube" project - the only one of its
kind in the nation - is expected to cost well over $1-million.
- 25 -
There is one significant aspect of the Palmdale situation which
does not appear to have been resolved. Although the Federal
Government has prepared an "environmental impact report", legal
opinions to the effect that the Federal Government has failed
to comply with the full intent of the National Environmental
Policy Act cast doubt on the legality of the federal approval
of the proposed airport. The issue is presently clouded by
the prospect of suits by citizens groups, aimed at invalidating
the federal decision.
The Council, hoping to avert similar conflicts, sponsored
SB 1108, authored by Senator Tom Carrell, a member of the
Council and Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Environ-
mental Control. This new law requires environmental hearings
prior to State approval of new airports, V/STOL, and heliports.
The bill also applies to military sites being converted to
civilian use. The Council also sponsored SB 1077, authored
by Senator Robert Lagomarsino, which requires that the noise
impact upon affected communities be a consideration of the
California Highway Commission in their selections of highway
and freeway routes. Council members testified before various
Senate and Assembly committees on behalf of these bills.
Malibu:
The Malibu hearing led to several exciting and significant
actions by State government. This two-day hearing, which was
held in December 1969, considered the environmental problems
of areas located in the path of expanding urban centers. It
became quite clear that this valuable and unique open space
resource, still available to the citizens of the Los Angeles
metropolitan region, might soon be absorbed by urban sprawl.
Therefore the Council adopted a resolution recommending that
an early in-depth environmental study of the area be conducted
and that meanwhile the planning and construction of freeways
and other public works facilities be held in abeyance.
The hearing created much public awareness of the problems
facing this unique area and helped to mobilize community
sentiment and support for the introduction and adoption of
legislation to eliminate the Malibu-Whitnall Freeway from the
State highway system (SB 801, Senator Lou Cusanovich). In
signing the bill, the Governor pointed out that it is a policy
of his Administration "not to allow public works to damage
scenic beauty or the natural environment of California. He
further stated that "by removing this freeway route from our
system we will preserve the delicate ecology of a beautiful
gorge and mountain area that contains the only year-round
natural stream in Los Angeles County."
In order to prevent thoughtless piecemeal destruction of the
entire Santa Monica Mountain area, Legislation was introduced
NYV 26 -
(SB 959, Senator Robert Stevens) and adopted to create the
Ventura-Los Angeles Coastal and Mountain Study Commission.
The commission is charged with conducting a comprehensive
investigation of the regional significance of the Santa Monica
Mountain area, to evaluate the threat that development would
bring about, and to propose policies to best preserve the
area's ecological character. The commission bill included a
two-year moratorium on State projects of over $5-million.
The Division of Highways had already responded to this measure
by taking administrative action to halt all further planning
of the proposed coast highway. The regional significance of
the Santa Monica Mountains is rapidly being recognized at all
levels of government, as indicated by the introduction last
fall of federal legislation to establish an Urban National
Park in these mountains.
Huntington Beach:
The Council also came out strongly against additional fossil-
fueled power plants in the South Coast Basin. After holding
a hearing in Huntington Beach on a proposal by Southern
California Edison Company to expand its generating plant, the
Council recommended that a moratorium be placed on the construc-
tion of fossil-fueled power plants in the South Coast Basin
unless it could be demonstrated that further deterioration of
the quality of air in the basin would not result.
The Council's action prompted the Orange County Board of
Supervisors to deny the permit of Southern California Edison
Company and call for a moratorium on construction of all fossil-
fueled plants throughout the State. Shortly thereafter, the
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors passed Rule 67, aimed
directly at limiting the amount of pollution to be emitted
from power plants. This action was followed by the adoption
of similar legislation by the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
Again the Council was able to act as a catalyst to bring about
needed changes.
The issue in this case was power needs versus environmental
quality. It was the position of the power industry that power
is needed and that expansion of the Huntington Beach Plant and
continuing use of fossil fuels is the only way to meet this
need. The Council felt that the issue had to be faced squarely
and through strong action. The elimination of fossil-fueled
power plants is the Number One objective of many air pollution
authorities. If the latest auto emission standards are effective,
and if future power needs are to be met by the use of fossil
fuels, power plants would surpass automobiles as the major
source of air pollution in the South Coast Basin within a very
short period of time.
This emerging problem led Dr. Arie Haagen-Smit to report recently
to the Air Resources Board, of which he is chairman, that "no
- 27 -
more fossil power plants producing oxides of nitrogen can be
tolerated in the South Coast Basin." The Council so effectively
brought attention to the problem that plans of the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power to expand their Scattergood plant
in Playa del Rey were also halted.
The issue insofar as Southern California Edison is concerned has
not yet been resolved. The Public Utilities Commission has since
overruled the Orange County Board of Supervisors, and the matter
is now awaiting review by the State Supreme Court. Such legal
complications did not arise in the case of the Scattergood plant,
since facilities of the Department of Water and Power do not
come within the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission.
Issues such as these exemplify the need for a single multi-
disciplined State entity to deal with environmental degradation.
Special purpose departments, commissions, and agencies often
have difficulty in this regard since, in most cases, they are
assigned the responsibility of meeting a special need.
MEDIA COVERAGE:
An important by-product of the above mentioned hearings was the
several in-depth newspaper articles which provided a useful
tool in informing the public not only on specific issues but
also on their broader implications. One article, which was
prompted by the San Diego hearing, examined the fragile ecology
of the California coast and stressed the importance of preserving
lagoons to perpetuate a healthy marine life on the coast.
Another, which appeared after the Livermore hearing, probed the
growing smog crisis throughout California and adjacent states,
alerting people to the fact that this problem is no longer
limited to metropoli areas. A third article, which followed
the San Francisco hearing, dealt with problems created by the
so-called recreational or second home developments. This topic
has since occupied the attention of various State legislators,
who have probed the problem in interim hearings, which could
result in corrective legislation being achieved this year.
Other in-depth newspaper articles published this year as a result
of the Council's hearings dealt with Malibu and the Antelope
Valley. The Palmdale issue rated several quite excellent
stories, including a fine investigative piece on the application
of the National Environmental Policy Act to this project. The
Council owes considerable debt to the cooperation of the news
media throughout the State in covering the Council's activities
and in creating public understanding of environmental problems.
FUTURE OBJECTIVES:
Although the Council has put forth a number of recommendations
and has attempted to bring about positive actions to protect
the environment, its overall objective has not been accomplished.
- 28 -
During its final year, the Council will concentrate on the
development of comprehensive statewide goals and objectives
as well as specific guidelines, policies, and standards in
all areas of environmental quality. The Council will strive
for the expansion and refinement of the basic governmental
mechanism proposed in this report and examine and make
recommendations concerning those public and private policies
and actions which have the greatest impact on the environment.
Questions of land use, urban expansion, and population growth
and distribution, and the policies, practices, causes, and
consequences related to these major environmental issues will
continue to receive primary attention.
The Council will not only make recommendations concerning
the broad policy considerations mentioned above but will also
propose corrective measures in each specific area of environ-
mental quality. Significant emphasis will be placed on those
tax, assessment, and other economic practices which affect
environmental quality. Another important issue which will
receive considerable Council attention is that of environ-
mental funding. Stated simply, although the assignment is
extremely complex, the objectives of the Council's final year
will be to conduct those activities which are necessary to
develop for the Governor and the Legislature a comprehensive
plan to resolve the State's environmental problems on a
long-range basis.
THE COUNCIL IN RETROSPECT
Some of the important aspects of the activities and accomplish-
ments cited here point to the Council's role as a catalyst in
bringing about needed change through mobilization of community
interest and action. Another positive role attributed to the
Council is in getting private interests and public agencies
to reevaluate certain decisions involving environmental
quality. Although it has been criticized for actions taken
on specific issues, changing attitudes have tended to support
the Council's concern about the particular proposals involved.
Noise and airport development are now recognized as critical
environmental issues; freeways adversely affecting the
environment are being taken out of the State system; the
use of fossil fuel as a source of power in congested and
highly developed air basins is now recognized as unacceptable;
and the State itself is taking a new look at the Russian
River dredging proposal.
There is also the feeling that the Council is somewhat separate
from the traditional State bureaucracy and therefore more
accessible to those who might otherwise meet with total frus-
tration in trying to tackle specific environmental issues.
- 29 -
To the general public and to conservation groups, it provides
a forum for discussion at the State level.
This concept is echoed by groups such as "Stamp out Smog", in
Orange County. In its recent newsletter on the Council's Air
Quality Committee study. session at the University of California,
Riverside, they state: "The State Environmental Quality Study
Council met and again gave the various citizens groups
additional evidence of the fact that they will listen, and
that they are willing to carry worthwhile messages from the
citizenry to the government." This view was further expressed
in a statement from Clean Air News, published in Riverside,
#
in the State's Environmental Quality Study Council
citizens of California have found a communications channel to
the State government." Not only is this process an outlet for
private individuals and organizations, but it can be utilized
by local government as well. In addition to the Palm Springs
request which has already been cited, a letter was recently
received from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
extending "an invitation to meet here so that some very
important environmental issues can be discussed by the Council
and the people of this County."
Some of the Council's roles are confirmed by an article
prepared by UCLA Professor James Krier for the Stanford Law
Review. The article elaborates on the fractionated system
of government in which citizens are all too often powerless.
It sees the Council as filling an important void in our
present system, both as an ombudsman and as an environmental
advocate.
The Council, therefore, has numerous roles. One is to develop
comprehensive answers and long-range solutions to the environ-
mental problems of the State. Another includes acting as a
sounding board for the discussion of environmental issues and
bringing attention to these problems and increasing the under-
standing of all parties concerned about possible solutions.
It stands today as a viable advisory group with a broad balance
of representation including State legislators and administrators,
local government, and the public at large, able to respond to
specific problems in need of immediate solutions as well as to
advise on a long-range basis.
- 30 -
APPENDIX A
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AN
EMERGENCY AIR QUALITY MEASURE
APPENDIX A
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
DIRECTING THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD TO CONDUCT STUDIES
RELATING TO AIR QUALITY IN CRITICAL AIR BASINS
WHEREAS, The Technical Advisory Committee of the California
Air Resources Board has recommended air quality standards based
on preservation of health which presently are frequently exceeded
in the State's two most populous regions; and
WHEREAS, Responsible physicians and official medical
associations have described this as a state of emergency; and
WHEREAS, The Technical Advisory Committee of the California
Air Resources Board has further stated that in some instances
standards which are designed to assure freedom from injury to health
cannot be attained by the application of technical methods available
now or in the foreseeable future; and
WHEREAS, No implementation plan, including control measures
and a timetable, for the attainment of the recommended air quality
standards based on preservation of health presently exists; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
That the Members hereby request the California Air Resources Board
to conduct a study of all means of bringing the earliest possible
relief where this state of emergency exists, including, but not
limited to:
1. Compulsory annual inspection of motor vehicles;
2. Emergency regulation of the composition of fuels;
3. Standardization of smog alert levels;
4. Standardization of methods of air pollution measurement;
5. Limitation of some or all combustion uses of fossil fuels
during severe smog alert periods;
6. Termination of variances for stationary sources which have
been issued by local air pollution control districts;
7. Removal of the present statutory limit of $65 per emission
device for motor vehicles;
and to determine implementation plans for all, or for any combi-
nation of these and any other measure; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Members hereby request the California
Air Resources Board to conduct a study of all measures necessary
Al I I
Appendix A
to achieve the recommended air quality standards based on preser-
vation of health in the long-term, including, but not limited to:
1. Limitation of the number and use of automobiles, trucks, and
aircraft in the affected area, by rationing systems, taxation,
or other means;
2. Reduction of emissions from these sources to levels below
those now proposed;
3. Rendering of all industries and fossil-fueled power plants
in the affected area emission-free;
4. Development of a comprehensive non-polluting urban transport
system;
5. Limitation of population growth in the affected area by
restriction of subdivision, residential, commercial, and
other urban expansion;
6. Limitation of commercial and industrial growth to zero-emission
facilities;
7. Restriction of emissions from agricultural, domestic, and
recreational sources;
8. Development of clean sources of energy;
and to determine implementation plans, including control measures
and timetables for all, or for any other measures; and be it
further
RESOLVED, That the California Air Resources Board shall
submit a report of its findings from both studies, and of its
proposed implementation plans and timetables, to the Legislature
no later than January 1, 1972.
- A2 -
APPENDIX B
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING A
BASIN CARRYING CAPACITY STUDY
APPENDIX B
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH TO DETERMINE,
FROM A HEALTH STANDPOINT, THE NATURAL CARRYING CAPACITIES
OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND SOUTH COAST AIR BASINS
WHEREAS, Continuing concentration of population in the most
heavily urbanized regions of the State,and increasing production,
consumption, and waste generation rates have, on occasion, combined
to deplete and cause. deterioration of vital resources beyond the
capacity of natural processes to restore them; and
WHEREAS, In some instances the technical methods available
now or in the foreseeable future are insufficient to restore levels
of quality which will assure freedom from injury to health; and
WHEREAS, So long as such technical methods remain unavailable,
the natural carrying capacities of these urbanized regions must be
regarded as principal criteria in the establishment of standards
for the maintenance of public health in the face of continued
urbanization and concommitant increases in waste generation; and
WHEREAS, There is presently an insufficient understanding
of all factors contributing to, and interacting in, the depletion
of vital natural resources and their combined impact on public
health: now, therefore be it
RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
That the Members hereby request the California State Department of
Public Health to conduct a study of all such major factors and
their impact on the natural carrying capacities of the State's
two most urbanized regions, the nine-county San Francisco Bay
and the South Coast Air Basin, to include, but not be limited to:
1. The relationship of air, water, and land pollution patterns
within the regions and the regions' natural carrying
capacities;
2. The relationship of population growth and natural carrying
capacity;
3. The relationship of population distribution within the regions
and the regions' natural carrying capacities;
4. The relationship of land use patterns within the regions and
the regions' natural carrying capacities;
5. The relationship of circulation patterns within the regions
and the regions' natural carrying capacities;
6. The interrelations of any or all of these as they may affect
natural carrying capacity;
- Bl AM
Appendix B
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the study shall include proposals for
adequate regulation of those factors which it has revealed to
threaten or to exceed the natural carrying capacities as therein
determined, and further that these proposals will include maximum
permissible population figures for each region, based on the
combined relationships of current factors and their impact on
natural carrying capacities; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the Director shall appoint an Advisory
Committee representing appropriate professions and skills,
expressly to aid the State Department of Public Health in the
planning and conduct of the study, and that this Advisory
Committee shall hold regular public hearings in the course of
its duties; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the State Department of Public Health
shall submit a report of its findings from the study, and of its
proposals, to the Legislature no later than January 1, 1972.
- B2 -
APPENDIX C
SCHEDULE OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE
ACTIVITIES, 1970
APPENDIX C
SCHEDULE OF
COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES, 1970
Date
Activity
Location
January 5
Special EQSC Meeting, to consider Progress
Sacramento
Report
January 22
Tenth Regular EQSC Meeting
Sacramento
February 4
Eleventh Regular EQSC Meeting
Sacramento
February 13
Public Hearing, Problems of Conservation
San Diego
of Land- and Water-Related Open Space
Areas
February 16
Study Session, Water Resources Committee,
Berkeley
with representatives of Department of
Public Health and Water Resources Control
Board
March 7
Public Hearing, Threat of Air and Water
Livermore
Pollution and Diminishing Open Space
from Major Urban Centers to Adjacent
Areas
March 19
Twelfth Regular EQSC Meeting
Sacramento
April 15
Thirteenth Regular EQSC Meeting
Santa Rosa
April 16
Public Hearing, Coastline Development
Santa Rosa
May 6
Fourteenth Regular EQSC Meeting
San Francisco
May 7
Public Hearing, Role of Local Government
Millbrae
Officials in Environmental Quality
Control
May 21
Public Hearing, Air Quality and the
Los Angeles
Automobile and Petroleum Industries
June 5
Study Session, Water Resources Committee
Sacramento
with representatives of Water Resources
Control Board
June 17
Fifteenth Regular EQSC Meeting
Fresno
June 18
Public Hearing, Population Distribution
Fresno
and Land Use Capability
July 16
Study Session, Land Use Committee, with
Sacramento
Planning and Design representatives
from government and the private sector
- C1 -
Schedule of Council and Committee Activities, 1970
Date
Activity
Location
July 29
Sixteenth Regular EQSC Meeting
San Francisco
July 30
Public Hearing, Large-Scale Land
San Francisco
Development
September 10
Seventeenth Regular EQSC Meeting, and
San Clemente
Tour of San Onofre Nuclear Power
Plant
September 15
Study Session, Solid Waste Management
Sacramento
Committee, with representatives of
industry, and State, County, and
City governmental agencies
September 24
Study Session, Air Quality Committee,
Sacramento
with Air Resources Board and repre-
sentatives of citizens' organizations
October 15
Eighteenth Regular EQSC Meeting
Sacramento
October 29
Study Session, Noise Abatement Committee
Inglewood
with Scientific Advisory Group on Noise
November 9
Study Session, Land Use Committee, with
San Francisco
representatives from citizens' groups
November 13
Study Session, Land Use Committee, with
Los Angeles
representatives from citizens' groups
November 17
Study Session, Solid Waste Management
Sacramento
Committee, with representatives from
industry and State officials
November 20
Public Hearing, Youth and the Environment
Sacramento
November 24
Study Session, Air Quality Committee,
Riverside
with Statewide Air Pollution Research
Center, University of California, and
representatives from citizens' groups
December '17
Nineteenth Regular EQSC Meeting
Sacramento
December 29
Meeting, Air Quality Committee, to
Beverly Hills
discuss alternate air quality
recommendations for 1971 Progress
Report
- C2 -
APPENDIX D
PUBLIC HEARING AND STUDY SESSION
PARTICIPANTS
APPENDIX D
PUBLIC HEARINGS
LAND AND WATER RELATED OPEN SPACE
ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS FROM MAJOR
URBAN CENTERS TO ADJACENT AREAS
Date: February 13, 1970
Date: March 7, 1970
Place: La Jolla (San Diego)
Place: Livermore
Participants
Participants
Mayor Frank Curran, San Diego
Mayor Bernie Gerton, Pleasanton
John S. Bradshaw, President, Torrey
Mayor Gilbert Marguth, Livermore
Pines Wildlife Association
Gordon Bell, Meteorologist, State
Ed Butler, Attorney at Law
Air Resources Board
Prof. Tony Corso, San Diego State
Dr. Todd Crawford, Valley Air
College
Pollution Committee
Mrs. John Gruba
Milton Feldstein, Bay Area Air
John P. Kelly, Kensington Improve-
Pollution Control District
ment Association
Dr. Rodney Beard, Stanford Medical
Floyd Ruocco, Architect
Center; Technical Advisory Com-
Francis Dean, Architect
mittee, Air Resources Board
Philip R. Pryde, Sierra Club
Dr. Ray Thompson, State Air Pollution
Mrs. Virginia W. Taylor, Republican
Research Center, UC, Riverside
State Central Environmental Quality
George Musso, Planning Director,
Standing Committee
Livermore
Mrs. Frances Marshall, Crown Garden
Robert Seiker, State Division of
Club
Highways
Mrs. Susan Chaney
Larry Dahms, Bay Area Rapid Transit
Richard Pryterch
Roy Renner, Consultant, California
John Nagy
Steam Bus Project
Mrs. Marston Sargent
Erwin Luckman, People for Open Space
Gordon Soderland
William Fraley, Planning Director,
Mrs. Philip Farman
Alameda County
Mrs. Arthur Morley
Herbert Crowle, Director of Public
Mrs. Jane Edmiston
Works, Alameda County
Supervisor Jack Walsh, San Diego
Hulet C. Hornbeck, East Bay Regional
County
Park District
Councilman Bob Martinet, San Diego
Councilman Donald Miller, Livermore
Councilman Mike Schaeffer, San Diego
Arthur Futch, Planning Commissioner,
Councilman Lloyd Morrow, San Diego
Livermore
Homer Delawie, Planning Commissioner,
Michael MacCracken, Chairman, Del
City of San Diego
Valle Committee
Councilman Ben Cohan, Coronado
Dr. Don Watson, Chairman, Clean Air
Harold Gorham (re monorail system)
Coordinating Council
John F. Crane
Peter Zars, Sierra Club
August A. Pfeiffer, Kensington
Dr. Clarence L. Hoenig
Improvement Association
Edward Royce, Sierra Club
Arthur Jobla
Kent Dedrick, Southern Crossing
Mrs. Ruby Zellman
Action Team
Henry P. Cramer
Robert Pearson, Citizens for Planned
James Clapp, Urban Planning, San
Progress
Diego State College
Mrs. Valerie Raymond, League of
Frank Aubrey, Zero Population Growth
Women Voters
Gerald Fox, Environmental Education
Stewart Smith, Clean Air Coordinating
Clearinghouse.
Council
- D1 -
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SHORELINE MODIFICATION AND
MANAGEMENT
Date: April 16, 1970
William Kortum, President,
Place: Santa Rosa
Californians Organized to Acquire
Access to Tidelands (COAAST)
Participants
Claude Minard, Sonoma State College
Clarence Bob Stein
Robert Theiller, Chairman, Sonoma
V. M. Moir, California Chamber
County Board of Supervisors
of Commerce
Honorable John Dunlap, Assemblyman,
Fifth District
John Tutuer, Sierra Club
ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN
George Kovatch, Planning Director,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
Sonoma County
Dr. David Joseph, Executive Officer,
Date: May 7, 1970
North Coastal Regional Water
Place: Millbrae
Quality Control Board
D. J. Everitts, State Lands Commission
Participants
Bradford W. Lundborg, Sonoma County
Organization for Planned Environment
Mayor William G. Glang, Millbrae
(SCOPE)
Jack Walsh, Supervisor, San Diego
Colonel Charles Roberts, U. S. Army
County
Corps of Engineers
Lyman Cozad, City Manager, Arcadia
Karl Treffinger, American Institute
Henry J. Mello, Supervisor, Santa
of Architects
Cruz County
Prof. Joseph Johnson, UC, Berkeley;
Harry A. Tow, City Manager, Visalia
Consultant, Northern California
James V. Fitzgerald, Supervisor,
Aggregates
San Mateo County
John Zierold, Planning and Conser-
Jack Merelman, General Counsel and
vation League
Manager, County Supervisors
Philip Arend, Consulting Ecologist to
Association of California
Northern California Aggregates
Mrs. Mary W. Henderson, Councilman,
Dr. Cadet Hand, Marine Biologist,
Redwood City; representing
UC, Berkeley
Association of Bay Area
Dr. Ted O'Brien, Jenner Coastside
Governments (ABAG)
Conservation Coalition
Mrs. Claire Dedrick, Conservation
Dr. Edward Smith, Pacific Marine
Coordinators
Station
Mrs. Pat Barrentine, Committee for
Dr. Joseph Brumbaugh, Sonoma State
Green Foothills
College
Case Hansen, San Diego County
Paul Covell, Audubon Society
Mrs. Hazel Bond, Bay Area
Harold D. Bissell, State Interagency
Association of University Women
Council on Ocean Resources
Jack Dolan, California Advisory
Commission on Marine and Coastal
Resources
Gordon Miller, Director of Public
Works, Sonoma County
Jonathan Ela, Sierra Club
Stephen Johnson, Sierra Club
Georg Treichel, Center of Ecological-
Environmental Studies, San Francisco
State College
- D2 -
PUBLIC HEARINGS
AIR QUALITY AND THE AUTOMOBILE
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND
AND PETROLEUM INDUSTRIES
LAND USE CAPABILITY
Date: May 21, 1970
Date: June 18, 1970
Place: Los Angeles
Place: Fresno
Participants
Participants
John A. Maga, Executive Officer,
W. Stuart Home, Fresno Community
State Air Resources Board
Council
Robert L. Chass, Los Angeles
R. W. Bergstrom, Director,
County Air Pollution Control
Environmental Health, Fresno
District
County Health Department
Donald A. Jensen, Automobile
Donald Livingston, Planning
Emission Office, Ford Motor
Director, Fresno County
Company, Dearborn, Michigan
Professor Harold Tokmakian,
Joe E. Stoyack, Manager, Chrysler
Urban and Regional Planning,
Corporation Exhaust Control
Fresno State College
Laboratory, Los Angeles
John R. Teerink, Deputy Director,
Howard Hesselberg, Coordinator
State Department of Water
of Air Conservation, Ethyl
Resources
Corporation, Ferndale, Michigan
Colonel George B. Fink, District
R. E. Jeffrey, Manager, Research
Engineer, U. S. Army Corps of
and Development, Shell Oil
Engineers
Company, Detroit, Michigan
Zane G. Smith, Jr., Sierra
James Dooley, Vice President,
National Forest Service
Advance Development, McCulloch
John Rutherford, Zero Population
Corporation, Los Angeles
Growth
Malcolm McDuffie, President,
Michael McCloskey, Executive
Mohawk Petroleum Corporation, Inc
Director, Sierra Club
Los Angeles
L. R. Wohletz, Soil Conservation
E. E. Spitler, Manager, Fuels
Service, U. S. Department of
Division, Chevron Research
Agriculture, Berkeley
Company, Richmond, California
Don Dressler, Legislative
M. S. Thompson, Administrative Vice
Assistant, California Farm
President, Union Oil Company of
Bureau Federation
California
Professor Henry Fagin, School of
D. Allan Sedgwick, Vice President,
Administration, University of
West Coast Operations, Texaco,
California, Irvine
Inc., Los Angeles
Larry Kiml, California Chamber
Mrs. Margie Levi, Stamp Out Smog
of Commerce
Mrs. Pauline Koch, People's
Action Research
William Greninger, Sierra Club
Ed Koupal, General Manager,
People's Lobby
Mrs. Cassells, Playa del Rey
as D3 -
PUBLIC HEARINGS
LARGE-SCALE LAND DEVELOPMENT
YOUTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Date: July 30, 1970
Date: November 20, 1970
Place: San Francisco
Place: Sacramento
Participants
Participants
Keith Whipple, representing
Gerald Meral, University of
citizens group, Etna,
California, Berkeley (Water
Siskiyou County
Development)
Richard S. Whitehead, Planning
Lance King, University of
Consultant, Santa Barbara
California, Santa Cruz
The Reverend Richard Sample,
(Coastline)
Center for Environmental
Miss Claudia Ayers, University
Action, San Francisco
of California, Berkeley
Mrs. Betsy H. Laties, Friends
(Air Quality)
of the Santa Monica Mountain
Paul Silver, University of
Parks
California, Los Angeles
Stephen Moses, General Manager,
(Waste Management)
Boise-Cascade Recreational
Robert Von Holdt, Hayward State
Communities, Palo Alto
College (Waste Management)
Harold A. Berliner, District
Clifford Humphrey, Ecology
Attorney, Nevada County
Action, Modesto (Land Use)
Jerome B. Gilbert, Executive
James Eaton, University of
Officer, State Water Resources
California, Davis (Land Use)
Control Board
Fred de Jarlais, San Francisco
Ryland Kelley, President,
State College (Land Use)
Hare, Brewer and Kelley, Inc
Carl Newman, San Fernando Valley
Palo Alto
State College (Community
Sam Whiting, Attorney at Lawi
Involvement in Environmental
Western Property Developers
Conservation)
Council
David Jackman, Stanford Law
Thomas J. Nolan, Assistant
School (Role of Environmental
Commissioner, Subdivisions,
Law Societies)
State Department of Real Estate
Miss Ora Citron, University of
Donald A. Woolfe, Planning
Southern California (Environ-
Director, Tulare County
mental Education)
Lee Syracuse, Planner, California
Robert Burgess, University of
Builders Council
California, Los Angeles
Ben Glading, Regional Manager,
(Transportation)
Region II, State Department of
Gregg Schluntz, Hayward State
Fish and Game
College (Nuclear Power)
Mrs. Claire Dedrick, Conservation
Dennis Clark, Sacramento State
Coordinators, Menlo Park
College; and
Jack Wilburn, Sacramento State
College (Plant and Wildlife)
Miss Wendy Groner, San Francisco
State College
Donald Mitchell, Stanford University
Jack Anders and Christine Swan,
high school students, Sacramento
- D4 -
COMMITTEE STUDY SESSION
PARTICIPANTS
AIR QUALITY COMMITTEE
September 24, 1970 - Sacramento
Fieldtec, Inc.
Robert W. Scholler
Peter Bouvier, Planning and
UCLA - Dr. Richard Perrine
Conservation League
Pollution Research and Control
Paul Clifton, Resources Agency
Corporation - Erwin Kauper
William Greninger, Chairman,
Women For: - Mrs. Livia Donovan
Statewide Coalition for Clean
Planning and Conservation
Air
League - Martin M. Leveedale
John A. Maga, Executive Officer,
U. S. Forestry Service
Air Resources Board
Clyde A. O'Dell
Lawrence B. Perry, Department
Morris W. McCutchen
of Public Health
Quanti Folay, San Bernardino
Larry Ruff, Clean Air Council
Sun-Telegram
of San Diego
Bill Lair, KPRO Radio
Roger Sperling, Project Clean
Air
LAND USE COMMITTEE
Peter Zars, Coalition for Clean
Air; Sierra Club
July 16, 1970 - Sacramento
November 24, 1970 - Riverside
Samuel Cullers, Assistant Chief,
State Office of Planning
Clean Air Now
Robert Goodier, Division of Soil
Donald Bauer, Chairman
Conservation
Donald E. Zimmer
James D. Stokes, Department of
Statewide Air Pollution Research
Fish and Game
Center, University of California
Edward Williams, Eckbo, Dean,
at Riverside
Austin and Williams, Architects
Dr. Joseph V. Behar
John C. Williamson, Legislative
Dr. Paul Miller
Joint Committee on Open Space
Dr. Peter J. Slota, Jr.
Samuel E. Wood, Consultant
Dr. Edgar L. Stephens
Dr. C. Ray Thompson
November 9, 1970 - San Francisco
Coalition for Clean Air
Bill Greninger, Chairman
Honorable Jean Fassler,
Ray Bogucki
Supervisor, San Mateo County
Clean Air Council
Mrs. Claire Dedrick, Peninsula
Dr. Alan Schneider
Conservation Center
Sierra Club
Frank M. Stead, Planning and
John Zierold
Research Associates
Nathaniel Van de Verg
Eric Carruthers, President,
Stamp Out Smog
California Coastal Planners
Mrs. Pauline W. Koch
Mrs. Celia von der Muhll,
Mrs. Jear Somers
President, Save the Coast
James Somers
Mrs. Barbara Milhous and
American Medical Association
Ted Milhous, Jenner Coalition
Gerschen L. Schaefer, M.D.
Alfred Heller, President,
Citizens for Clean Air
California Tomorrow
Wallace J. Duffy
Frederick Styles, Assembly Science
Write fc Your Life
and Technology Advisory Council
Mrs. Eda Rossman
Dr. Robert Girard, Stanford Law
Save Our Children
School
Mrs. Toni Sample
Edward Royce, Sierra Club
D5 I I
Committee Study Session Participants
LAND USE COMMITTEE (continued)
Alex Man, Federation of Organi-
zations for Conserving Urban
Georg Treichel, Member, Governor's
Space (FOCUS)
Coastal Commission
Mrs. Faye'S. Hove, California
Gail Achterman, Save San Francisco
Citizens' Freeway Association
Bay Association
Dr. Norman Saunders, Department
Mrs. Janet Gray Hayes, Save Our
of Geography, UC, Santa Barbara
Valley Action Committee
Mr. and Mrs. Tasker L. Edmiston,
William D. Evers, Open Space
Desert Protective Council, Inc.
Action Planning; Conservation
Dr. Sherman Griselle, American
League
Institute of Planners
Mrs. Dorothy Erskine, People for
Mrs. Howard Allen, Desert
Open Space
Protective Council, Inc.
Dr. Kenneth Hayes, Santa Clara
Gerald Fox, Environmental
County Medical Society, Environ-
Clearinghouse
mental Health Committee
Lyle Taylor (re Owens Valley)
Leslie E. Carbert, Associated
Dr. Gary Herbertson, United
Regional Citizens
Methodist Church
Harold A.. Berliner, District
William A. Wilcoxsen, Attorney
Attorney, County of Nevada
Mrs. Virginia Kessels, The
Thomas Bonnicksen, Commissioner,
Watchful Eye
State Department of Parks and
Bruce G. Sharky, College of
Recreation
Environmental Design,
Wayne M. Swan, American Institute
California Polytechnic
of Planners
Mrs. Pauline Koch, People's
Daniel Kane, Jr., Committee for
Action Research
Green Foothills
Graham O. Smith, Save Malibu
Graham O. Smith, Save Malibu
Canyon Committee
Canyon Committee
Charles A. Grayer
William E. Spangle, Sr., Committee
John A. Hobbs
for Green Foothills
Mrs. Dorothea Edmiston, Citizens
John M. Haley, State Department
Coordinate for Century III
of Water Resources
George Nishimura
G. McHinley, University of
November 13, 1970 - Los Angeles
Southern California
Samuel Cullers, State Office of
Planning
NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE
William Atherton, Assembly Science
and Technology Advisory Council
October 29, 1970 - Inglewood
Barry Siegel, Urban Coalition
Liaison
(This session was held by
Frederick Eissler, Scenic Shore-
Committee, EQSC staff and
line Preservation Conference
Counsel, and the newly-
Mrs. Ellen Stern Harris, Council
appointed Scientific Advisory
for Planning and Conservation
Group on Noise, listed in
Richard Ball, Sierra Club
Appendix
Mrs. Pat Ellison, Environmental
Coalition of Ventura County
Mrs. Darlene Mitcheltree, The
Watchful Eye
Dr. L. Douglas DeNike, Zero
Population Growth
- D6 -
Committee Study Session Participants
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
November 17, 1970 - Sacramento
September 15, 1970 - Sacramento
A. Harry Astor, Attorney at Law
John Moscone, Golden Gate
Z. Harry Astor, Attorney at Law
Disposal Company
John Moscone, Golden Gate
Lester A. Haug, County Sani-
Disposal Company
tation Districts, Los Angeles
William Ohanesian, System
Robert Bargman, Director, Los
Disposal Service
Angeles City Bureau of
Carl Sexton, Los Angeles
Sanitation
By-Products Company
Ralph McGill, California Refuse
Dewey Vittori, Oakland
Removal Council
Scavenger Company
Don Benninghoven, League of
Tom Walters, Redwood Empire
California Cities
Disposal Corporation
John Tooker, Resources Agency
Robert Bargman, Director, Los
Jerome B. Gilbert, Water Resources
Angeles City Bureau of
Control Board
Sanitation
Lloyd Lapham, Consultant, Senate
Lester A. Haug, County Sani-
Select Committee on Environmental
tation Districts of Los Angeles
Control
Don Benninghoven, League of
James Cornelius, Water Resources
California Cities
Control Board
Randy Hamilton, League of
Press representatives from:
California Cities
Associated Press, Capitol News
Sam Sanchez, League of
Service, Metromedia News,
California Cities
Sacramento Bee, Sacramento
Terry McGuire, State Air
Union, and United Press
Resources Board
International
Dr. John M. Heslep, State
Department of Public Health
WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Lawrence A. Burch, State
Department of Public Health
February 16, 1970, and June 5, 1970-
Peter A. Rogers, State Water
Sacramento
Resources Control Board
James Pardau, Consultant,
Water Resources Control Board
Assembly Committee on Natural
Jerome B. Gilbert, Executive
Resources and Conservation
Officer
Lloyd Lapham, Consultant,
Winfred W. Adams, Member
Senate Select Committee on
Norman B. Hume, Member
Environmental Control
Ronald B. Robie, Member
Kenneth L. Woodward, Chief,
Water Rights Division
Department of Public Health
Henry J. Ongerth, Chief
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering
- D7 -
APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STUDY COUNCIL -
ENABLING LEGISLATION
APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STUDY COUNCIL -
THE ENABLING LEGISLATION
PART 11. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STUDY
COUNCIL [NEW]
Chapter
Section
1. State Policy
16000
2. Definitions
16020
3. Organization and Membership of the Council
16050
4. Powers and Duties of the Council
16080
Part 14 added by Stats.1968, c. 1380, p. 2711, § 1; Stats.1968, c. 1395, p.
2751, § 1.
CHAPTER 1. STATE POLICY
Sec.
16000. Finding.
16001. Need of study.
Chapter 1 added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2711, § 1; Stats.1968, c. 1395,
p. 2751, § 1.
$ 16000. Finding
The Legislature finds that:
(a) Rapid population growth, economic development and urbanization have affected
the quality of California's natural environment.
(b) The proliferation of noise from transportation sources have led to the exposure
of large sectors of the populace to an unacceptable degree of noise.
(c) The anticipated rates of construction of new airports and extension of exist-
ing airports, construction of freeways and mass rapid transit lines. and the introduc-
tion into service of intraurban short taknoff and land and vertical takeoff and land
aircraft operating at low cruising altitudes will rapidly escalate the urban noise
problem unless systematic preventive measures are taken.
(d) There is a large discrepancy between the technology available for control of
urban noise and the degree to which it is being utilized in practice. through such
means as land use planning. noise control provisions in building design and con-
struction. and legal control over the movements of noise-producing transportation
vehicles.
(c) Improvement of the quality of California's physical environment consistent
with the maximum benefit to the people of the state is a matter of statewide, region-
al. and local concern calling for coordinated public and private action in the interest
of the health. safety. and welfare of present and future generations,
(Added by Stats.1968, (', 1380, p. 2711, § 1: Stats.1968, c. 1395, p. 2751, § 1. Amend-
ed by Stats,1969, C. 1012, p. - $ 1.)
The word "consistent" following "envir-
onnient" was not contained in the addition
by Stats,1968. c. 1380, p. 2711, $ 1.
Asterisks
$
Indicate deletions by amendment
- El -
§ 16001
GOVERNMENT CODE
§ 10001. Need of study
An In-depth study is needed:
(a) To define the interrelationship of resources management, land use and trans-
portation policies, and other matters, including noise emissions, that affect environ-
mental quality.
(b) To determine whether existing approaches to the protection, management, and
Improvement of environmental quality are adequate for effective, long-range solu-
tions to the problems.
(c) To recommend appropriate action necessary to effectively protect, manage, and
improve environmental quality on a long-range basis.
(Added by Stats.1968, c. 1380, P. 2711, § 1; Stats.1968, C. 1395, p. 2752, § 1.)
The text of both 1968 additions was iden-
tical.
CHAPTER 2. DEFINITIONS
Sec.
16020. Council.
10021. Environmental quality.
16022. Waste management.
Chapter 2 added by Stats.1968. c. 1380, p. 2711, § 1; Stats.1968, C. 1395, p.
2752, $ 1.
$ 16020. Council
"Council" means the State Environmental Quality Study Council.
(Added by Stats.1968, c. 1380, p. 2711, § 1: Stats.1968, e. 1395, p. 2752, $ 1.)
The text of both 1963 additions was iden-
tical.
§ 16021. Environmental quality
"Environmental quality" means the characteristics or conditions and relative de-
gree of excellence of the physical and biological constituents of man's surroundings.
(Added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2711, § 1; Stats.196S, c. 1395, p. 2752, § 1.)
The text of both 1968 additions was iden-
tical.
§ 16022. Waste management
"Waste management" means the organized and systematic actions by which waste
products are utilized, or collected. processed, and disposed without an unreasonable
adverse effect upon man's environment.
(Added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2711, § 1: Stats.1908, C. 1395, p. 2752, § 1.)
The text of both 1968 additions was iden-
tical.
CHAPTER 3. ORGANIZATION AND MEMBERSHIP
OF THE COUNCIL
Soc.
16050. Existence.
16051. Composition.
16052. Nonvoting members.
16053. Chairman.
10054. Termination of council.
16055. Reports.
Chapter 3 added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2712, § 1; Stats.1968, C. 1395, p.
2752. 8 1.
§ 16050. Existence
There Is In the state government the State Environmental Quality Study Council.
(Added by Stats.1968, e. 1380, P. 2712, $ 1; Stats.1968, c. 1395, p. 2752, § 1.)
Library references
States
C.J.S. States $5 52. 66.
The text of both 1968 additions was Iden-
tical.
- E2 -
GOVERNMENT CODE
§ 16055
§ 16051. Composition
The council consists of the following membership:
Secretary of the Resources Agency.
Secretary of the Business and Transportation Agency.
Chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board.
Chairman of the State Air Resources Board.
Seven public members appointed by the Governor, who shall have demonstrated In-
terest in, and knowledge of, the protection, management, and improvement of the
quality of California's physical environment. One of the seven public members ap-
pointed by the Governor, in addition to the qualifications specified in this section,
shall represent the solid waste management industry and one of the seven public
members appointed by the Governor shall represent city and county government. as
selected from the city and county members on the Intergovernmental Council on
Urban Growth.
Four members, two of whom shall be appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly,
and two by the Senate Rules Committee.
(Added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2712, § 1; Stats.1968, c. 1395, p. 2752, $ 1.)
The text of both 1968 additions was iden-
tical.
§ 16052. Nonvoting members
In addition to the members specified pursuant to Section 16051, the council con-
sists of the following nonvoting ex officio membership:
Director of Public Health
Director of Agriculture
Director of Parks and Recreation
Director of Fish and Game
Director of Conservation
Director of Public Works
Director of Water Resources
Director of Housing and Community Development
City and county members of the Intergovernmental Council on Urban Growth
(Added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2712, § 1; Stats.1968, C. 1395, p. 2753, § 1.)
The text of both 1968 additions was iden-
tical.
§ 16052.1. Same: Members of Legislature constituting joint in-
vest gative committee.
In addition to the members specified pursuant to Sections 16051
and 16052, the conneil consists of one Member of the Senate. ap-
pointed by the Senate Rules Committee, and one Member of the
Assembly. appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, who shall
meet with, and participate in the activities of the council to the
extent that such participation is not incompatible with their re-
spective positions as Members of the Legislature. For the purposes
of this part, such Members of the Legislature shall constitute a
joint investigating committee on the subject of this part, and as
such shall have the powers and duties imposed upon such com-
mittees by the Joint Rules of the Senate and Assembly. [Added
by Stats 1970 ch 163 § 1.]
- E3 -
§ 16053. Same: Chairman.
The Governor shall designate the chairman of the council. [Added
by Stats 1968 ch 1395 § 1.]
See note to § 16000.
Note.-There was an identical section of this number which was added by
Stats 1968 eh 1380 § 1 and repealed by Stats 1970 ch 346 § 9.
See note to § 045.6.
§ 16054. Same: Termination of existence.
The council shall cease to exist upon the adjournment sine die
of the 1972 [1] Regular Session of Legislature. [Added by Stats
1968 ch 1395 $ 1; Amended by Stats 1970 ch 1142 § 1.]
[1] "1972" substituted for "1971" in 1970.
See note to § 16000.
Note.-There was an identical section of this number which was added by
Stats 1968 eh 1380 § 1 and repealed by Stats 1970 ch 340 § 9.
See noto to § 945.6.
§ 16055. Same: Progress reports: Final report: Recommenda-
tions.
The council shall make progress reports to the Governor and to
the Legislature on February 1, 1969, on February 1, 1970, and on
February 1. 1971 [1]; and shall make a final report to the Governor
and to the Legislature on February 1, 1972 [2]. at which time the
council shall make recommendations as to how its powers and duties
can best be carried out in the future.
There is hereby continuously appropriated from the California
Environmental Protection Program Fund as created by Senate Bill
262 of the 1970 Regular Session of the Legislature to the council
sufficient funds for the necessary expenses of the council in the
performance of its duties. [1] [Added by Stats 1968 ch 1395 § 1;
Amended by Stats 1970 ch 1142 § 2.]
[1] Italicized material preceding [1] added in 1970.
[2] "1972" substituted for "1971" in 1970.
See note to § 16000.
Note.-There was an identical section of this number which was added by
Stats 1968 ch 1380 § 1 and repealed by Stats 1970 ch 346 § 9.
See note to § 945.6.
- E4 -
§ 16080
GOVERNMENT CODE
CHAPTER 4. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COUNCIL
Soc.
10080. Mandatory dutles.
16081. Discretionary powers.
Chapter 4 added by Stats.1968, c. 1380, p. 2712, § 1; Stats.1968, c. 1395, p.
2753, $ 1.
$ 16080. Mandatory dutles
The council shall:
(a) Make a thorough study of relevant policles, practices, and programs in the state
that relate significantly to environmental quality, including noise emission con-
trol.
(b) Identify major environmental quality problems, giving consideration to all of
the possible interrelationships between the degradation or improvement of air, land,
and water resources.
(c) Develop long-range goals and make recommendations, after holding public
hearings, as to policies, criteria, and programs as guides in the protection, manage-
ment, and improvement of California's environmental quality.
(d) Identify problems in existing environmental quality control efforts in the
state, Including unmet or inadequately met needs, undesirable overlaps or conflicts
in Jurisdiction, between or among federal, state, regional, and local agencies, and
any efforts that may be unnecessary or undesirable.
(e) Recommend, after holding public hearings, such legislative and administrative
actions as may be necessary to establish goals, policies, and criteria and to imple-
ment programs that will effectively protect, manage, and improve environmental
quality on a long-range basis.
(f) Review and make recommendations, after holding public hearings, on proper
state, regional. or local governmental mechanisms. which would formulate broad poli-
cles, objectives and criteria for the coordinated protection, management, and im-
provement of California's physical environment.
(g) Make recommendations for immediate action by state agencies as defined in
Section 11000 of the Government Code which would effectively preserve and en-
hance California's natural environment.
(h) Appoint a scientific advisory group to consider and report to the council on
the state of the art of urban noise-control technology and to recommend appropriate
actions necessary to effectively protect. manage, and improve the noise environment
on a long-range basis. This advisory group shall be composed of not less than five
nor more than 10 members. To provide the necessary depth and breadth in modern
acoustics, members of the scientific advisory group shall be practicing acoustical
engineers.
(1) Avail itself of technical information available from federal agencies involved
in research and administrative measures for the control of noise such as the De-
partments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare. Specifically, the council shall apprise itself of technical advise-
ment available from the Interagency Aircraft Noise Abatement Program, including
its Land Use and Airports:Panel and its Legislative and Legal Panel.
(Added by Stats.1968, e. 1380, p. 2712, $ 1; Stats.1968, c. 1395, p. 2753, § 1. Amended
by Stats.1909, c. 1042, p. - § 2.)
- E5 -
GOVERNMENT CODE
§ 16081
§ 16081. Discretionary powers
The council may:
(a) Appoint an executive secretary and other staff.
(b) Receive and disburse federal, state, or local funds.
(c) Contract for services.
(d) Hold public hearings.
(e) Appoint such advisory groups as may be necessary to carry out its powers and
duties.
(f) Call upon any state agency for assistance in carrying out its objectives.
(Added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2713, 8 1; Stats.1968, C. 1395, p. 2754, 8 1.)
The text of both 1968 additions was iden-
tical.
- E6 -
APPENDIX F
CHART - STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND IMPROVEMENT
Land Use
Water Resources
Air Resources
Solid Waste Management
Noise Abatement
General
AGRICULTURE AND SERVICES
AGENCY
1. Works with cities, counties, and land.
1. Conducts surveys to
1. Regulates the method of
1. License each pesticide
Department of Agriculture
owners in administering agricultural
detect plant pests and
disposal of ships' gorbage
product and persons selling,
preserves under the California Land Con-
conditions new to the
and the feeding of garbage
or applying agricultural pesti-
servation Act of 1965. Government Code,
state or area, Plant
to hogs. Agricultural Code,
cides for hire. Agricultural
Section 51200-51295.
damage caused by oir
Section 16001-16154, 10901-
Code, Section 12811, 12101-
*($13)
($13)
($13)
pollutants is measured
10990.
12107, 11701-11705.
and reported. Agricul-
($58)
($58)
($58)
($564)
($645)
($729)
tural Code Section 401,
2. Designotes pesticides that are
461, 5321.
injurious materials or injurious
($20)
($29)
($46)
herbicides requiring a permit
from County Agriculturol
Commissioner, before purchase
and use. Agricultural Code,
Section 14001-14033.
($334)
($372)
($484)
3. Anolyzes samples of fruit,
vegetobles, feed, milk, and meat
for pesticide residues and stops
sale of lots with excess residue.
Agricu Itural Code, Section
12581-12801.
4. Works with Water Resources
Control Board and Departments
of Public Health, Fish and Gome,
and the University of California
in evaluating proposed uses of
pesticides.
BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTA-
Agricultural Code, Section
TION AGENCY
12824, 14102,-14103.
Department of Aeronautics
1. Establishes noise standords
to a point not prohibited by
federal law with which all
civil aircraft operating from
permitted airports in Calif-
ornia must comply effective
January 1, 1971. Public
Utilities Code, Section
21669-21669.4.
($0)
($31)
($20)
2. Noise standards can be
different for each classifica-
tion of airport.
3. Noise standord violation is a
misdemeanor and shall be
punished by a $1000 fine for
each infraction.
4. As condition of site approval
make determination that od-
vontages to public of future
airport sites outweigh dis-
advontages to environment.
($0)
($0)
($0)
5. In the future sponsar must
include in his request far
airport funding a statement
of the environmental impact.
* Where available, costs for programs (in thousands of dollars) are shown in
($0)
($0)
($0)
parenthesis following text for fiscal years (1968-69) (1969-70) (1970-71).
STATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND IMPROVEMENT
F-1
State Agency
Land Use
Water Resources
Air Resources
Solid Waste Management
Noise Abatement
General
Department of California
1. Inspect vehicles for re-
1. Enforce against throwing
1. Excessive noise research
Highway Patrol
quired exhoust emission
lighted objects or litter
and highway enforcement.
control devices. Vehicle
from vehicles olong highways.
Vehicle Code, Section 23130,
Code, Section 2814
Vehicle Code, Section 23111,
27150, 27151, 27160.
($218)
($231)
($240)
23112, 23115. Penal Code,
($108)
($191)
($268)
2. License and regulate of-
Section 374b, Heolth and
2. Technical assistance provided
ficial pollution control
Sofety Code, Section 13001-
by Sofety Services Division.
stations, Vehicle Code,
13002.
Section 2500-2504, 2520-2523,
($6)
($7)
($7)
2540-2549, 12303, 27153,
27153.5,, ond 27156.
($269)
($332)
($278)
Department of Housing and
1. Moy assist State Office of Planning.
1. Assists local government and other
1. Assists locol government
1. The Department hos statutory
1. The Department has statutory
Community Development
2. Assists local governments with re-
stote agencies with housing and
and other stote agencies
authority relating to woste
authority relating to noise
development programs.
community development projects
in developing a healthy
disposal under outhority
abatement opplicable to
3. Provides stotistics and research service on
associated with development of
residential environment
granted in the Health ond
buildings subject to provi-
housing and community development.
water sources and resulting recrea-
including compatible in-
Sofety Code applicable to
sions of the State Housing
($100)
($100)
($100)
tion facilities.
dustrial growth patterns
buildings subject to pro-
Low, Division 13, Part 1.5.
4. Conducts demonstration projects.
with clean air os a major
visions of the State Housing
($0)
($1)
($1)
5. Assists local government and private
consideration.
Law, to buildings and instal-
2. The Division of Building and
groups in developing housing.
lations within mobilehome
Housing Standards is now in
parks, and also to buildings
the process of developing
subject to provisions of the
proposed regulations in this
Employee Housing Act.
areo.
Labor Code.
($250)
($250)
($250)
2. The Department has in force
ond effect regulations in the
above areas.
Department of Motor Vehicles
1. Evidence of smog control
1. Regulates the disposal of oband
1. Administers the sale of
device a prerequisite to
abandoned or wrecked motor
personalized license plates
motor vehicle registration.
vehicles. Vehicle Code,
to finance the California
Vehicle Code, Section
Section 11500-11522, and
Environmental Protection
4000.1, 4000.2, and 24007(b).
22650-22856.
Program Fund. Vehicle
($373)
($404)
($485)
Code, Section 5100-5110
($0)
($0)
($1,143)
Department of Public Works
1. The Department of Public Works hos been
1. Highway design procedures and con-
1. Conducts studies of motor
1. Litter control and sweeping
1. Noise study on the use of
engaged in comprehensive regional transpor-
struction techniques to assure pra-
vehicle related air pollution.
programs plus mointenance of
physical barriers built parallel
tation studies in 10 urban areas of Calif-
tection of water quality. Standard
California Highwoy Commis-
raadside rests and visto
to the freeway to separate
ornia. Such cooperating ogencies as SCAG
Special Provisions (since 1960)
sion Action.
points.
surrounding community from
ABAG, Sacramento Regional Area Planning
have provided that highwoy con-
($0)
($640)
($527)
Streets and Highways Code,
traffic noise,
Commission and the Comprehensive Plan-
tractors must avoid working in flow-
2. The following studies ore
Sections 27 and 101.6.
2. Joint project with the Colif-
ning Organization in San Diego are furnish-
ing streams and causing siltation of
being conducted as the result
ornia Highway Patrol to demon-
ing basic land use information for these
rivers and streams.
of action of the California
Cost of litter control and
strate feasibility of further re-
studies.
Highway Commission.
sweeping:
ducing noise limits for trucks
2. Individual route and project considerations
A Memorandum of Understanding be-
G. Conversion of State vehi-
($3,370)
($4,410)
($5,200)
and motorcycles.
include socio-economic environmental studies,
tween the Department of Public Works
cles to operate on low
joint use, protection of scenic corridors,
ond the Department of Fish and Game
emission fuels.
Cost of maintenance of rood-
planting and roadside rests.
(March 10, 1961) specifies meosures
($90)
($167)
side rests and vista points:
to be employed to preserve or enhance
b. Evaluation of low emission
($550)
($872)
($1,140)
fish and wildlife resources during
devices for new and used
highway construction.
cars.
($190)
($100)
STATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND IMPROVEMENT
F-2
State Agency
Land Use
Water Resources
Air Resources
Solid Waste Management
Noise Abatement
General
Department of Public Works
3. Community and Environmental Factors Units
The capping of existing abandoned
C. An inspection and
3. Develop criteria related to
(Continued)
(CEFU) have been established in each High-
wells is required in connection with
maintenance pilot
traffic noise and the use of
ways District. California Administrative Code,
new highway construction to prevent
study to determine
land in the vicinity of free.
Section 1451; Streets and Highways Code,
contamination of water bearing strota,
methods of reducing
ways. Streets and Highways
Sections 210-214; Department of Transporta-
Coardinated investigations are done by
exhaust emissions
Code, Sections 75.7 and 1298.
tion Act, Section 4(f); 1968 Federal Highway
the Department of Water Resources.
from mator vehicles.
Act; 1969 Public Low 91-190 National
($400)
($50)
Environmental Policy Act: 1970 Chapter 1433;
Fish and Game Code, Sections 1505,
d. Totol air contaminants
Marler-Johnsan Highway Park Act of 1969;
1600, 1601, 1602, 5650, 12015; Water
from the vehicle popu-
Government Code, Sections 54220-54223;
Code, Sections 13700-13806.
lation.
Streets and Highways Code, Sections 75.5,
($33)
($82)
($50)
($50)
and 135.3-135.7.
e. Control of emissions
($10,681)
($13,070)
($14,943)
from the construction
process (aspholt
plants, rock pro-
ducing plants, con-
struction equipment).
($40)
($40)
3. Study of the use of low-lead
and no-lead gasoline to
determine the operational
effects of State cors when
operated on no-lead or
low-lead gasoline.
HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY
Department of Industrial
1. Regulates exposures to
1. Industrial safety orders contain
Relations
hozardaus substances in
regulations on excessive
places of employment, in
noise.
particular, pesticides,
radioactive material, and
emission from vehicles
operated in enclosed
spaces. Labor Code,
Section 6311, 6313-6316,
and 6418-6420.
($199)
($225)
($209)
Department of Public Health
1. No specific statutory authority, but the
1. Assuring the safety, purity, wholesome-
1. Develops and recommends air
1. Conducting study of
Department has a broad interest in land
ness, and potability of damestic water
1. No specific statutory authority,
1. Pesticide interprets
quality standards based on
use and land use policies becouse of
solid waste problems
supplies. Health and Safety Code
but the Department has several
data on heolth effects of
health. Health and Safety
and needs of Calif-
the strong significance they have to
Section 200-211, 4001-4002, 4010-4055,
staff members expert in the field,
chemical agents in the
Code, Section 200-211, 425,
ornia to:
many determinants of health. Heolth
who conduct noise studies and
4450-4471; Water Code, Section 13144-
environment. Health and
39051, 39052.
O. Determine current
and Safety Code, Section 205-211, 2521,
13165, 13411-13413; Revenue and
provide advice and assistance
Safety Code, Section 205-
2. Conducts studies on health
policies, practices,
18897-18897.7.
Taxation Code, Section 17226.
relative to community and OC-
211, 429.11; Agricultural
effects of air pollution.
and programs in the
cupational noise problems, in
2. Prevent contamination of Stote's
Code, Section 14103.
Health and Safety Code, Sec-
State.
recognition that noise is o sig-
($972)** ($570)** ($559)**
waters from sewage and other wastes.
tion 200-211, 425, 39051-39052.
b. Assess and evoluate
nificont environmental factor.
Heolth and Sofety Code, Section 200-211;
current salid waste
Heolth and Safety Code, Section
3050-3052, 4400-4461, 5410-5463; Water
problems and make
205-211, 429.11.
Code, Section 13165, 13240, 13411-13413,
projections of future
13540-13541.
problems.
**Costs shown include costs for Radiological Health which ore not
STATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
limited to air but no separate cost estimates are available.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND IMPROVEMENT
F-3
State Agency
Land Use
Water Resources
Air Resources
Salid Waste Management
Noise Abatement
General
Department of Public Health
3. Establish standards for reclamation of
3. Provides laboratory and
C. Evaluate existing state
2. Vector Control Obtains
(Continued)
waste water. Health and Safety Code,
other support to the Air
of the art and promis-
effective control of
Section 200-211; Water Code, Section
Resources Board. Health
ing new developments
environmental conditions
13411-13413, 13520-13523.
and Safety Code Section
as regards criteria,
and carriers of animal-
425, 39023, 39052;
techniques and methods
borne disease. Health
4. Assuring sonitation and safety of water
Revenue and Taxation
for dealing with solid
and Safety Code, Section
recreational areas and public swimming
Code, Section 24372.
wastes. Health and
200-215, 1800-1813, 2425-
pools. Health and Safety Code, Section
Safety Code, Section
2426; Agricultural Code,
200-211, 4050-4055, 4462-4471, 24100-24159.
4. Radiological Health
200-215.
Section 6021.
Maintains surveillance
($868)
($639)
($646)
5. Assuring that shellfish do not cause
of environmental medio
2. Provides advice and assis-
poisoning or disease (as a result of
(air, water, food, soil)
tonce to local government
conditions of water in which they grow).
for radiation levels.
in solid woste management
Health and Safety Code, Section 200-211;
Controls users of radia-
problems. Health and
Fish and Game Code, Section 5670-5674.
active materials to pre-
Safety Code, Section
($1,222)
($1,472)
($1,393)
vent harmful escape or
205-215, 5410-5463.
disposal of materials.
3. (See Water Resources
Health and Safety Code,
Column for Department's
Section 203-211, 4400-
concern with water-borne
4404, 5410-5463,
wastes, and Air Resources
25600-25876.
Calumn relative to air-
borne wostes.)
($70)
($70)
($70)
RESOURCES AGENCY
1. Chapter 988, Statutes of 1968, established
1. The Secretary for Resources has been
1. The California Resources
the Secretary far Resaurces OS a member
authorized by Governor Reagon to
Agency was designated by
of the California Tahoe Regional Planning
coordinate the State of California's
Governor Reagan on March
Agency and the Bi-State Tahae Regional
comments on the following:
12, 1969, os the State en-
Planning Agency. The purpose of these
O. All investigations of and reports on
tity to coordinate the octi-
agencies is to provide the proper planning
water development, flood control and
vities of all stote agencies
for the development of the Tahoe Basin
related projects of the U.S. Depart-
relative to thermal power
while preserving the integrity of the Lake
ment of the Interior.
plant siting. The Secretory
itself. Since its establishment, either
b. Reports an projects of the U.S. Army
for Resources has created
or both ogencies have been funded through
Corps of Engineers.
o power plant siting com-
on appropriation in the budget of the
C. Projects pertoining to the Federal
mittee to advise him on
Resources Agency.
Pawer Commission.
these matters and has
($15)
($65)
($50)
d. Soil Conservation Projects (PL-566)
delegated this responsi-
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
bility to that committee.
These comments include the effect of the
2. It should be noted that
proposed praject on the environment of the
while air pollution is a
State of California.
major consideration, the
Committee studies the
total environmental effect
of any proposal.
Air Resources Board
1. Coordinates stotewide
air pollution control
octivities. Health and
Safety Code, Section
39052.
($148)
($200)
($237)
2. Determines the noture, cause,
occurrence, and effects of
air pollution. Health and
Safety Code Section 39052.
($524)
($707)
($1,007)
STATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND IMPROVEMENT
F-4
State Agency
Lond Use
Water Resources
Air Resources
Solid Waste Management
Noise Abatement
General
Air Resources Board
3. Establishes air basins
(Continued)
throughout the State and
adopts oir quality stan-
dards for these basins.
Heolth and Safety Code,
Section 39051.
($107) ($144) ($100)
4. Makes an inventory of
sources in each basin,
reviews regulations of
local control agencies,
provides technical 05*
sistonce to these agencies
and enforces the air qua-
lity standards when local
agencies foil to do so.
Health and Safety Code,
Section 39051, 39052 and
39054.
($152) ($206) ($305)
5. Monitars oir pollutants
and collects data. Health
and Sofety Code, Section
39052.
($487) ($656) ($1,105)
6. Adopts motor vehicle
emission standards and
test procedures, approves
emission control systems,
and maintains surveillance
of emissions from control
systems. Health and Safety
Code, Section 39051 and
39052.
($698) ($942) ($1,585)
7. Conducts research on air
pollution. Health and Safety
Code, Section 39067.
($3,000)
Bay Conservation and
1. Has specific and limited jurisdiction over
1. Protects San Francisco Boy for pre-
1. B.C.D.C. studies and
1. Bay Plan prohibits further
Development Commission
strip of land 100 feet inland from the shoreline
sent and future generotions. Encour-
B.C.D.C. Boy Plan indi-
use of bay simply as O
of the bay to:
ages development of the bay ond its
cote the importance of the
dumping ground for wastes.
O. require maximum feasible public occess to
shoreline to their highest potential
woter surfoce of the boy in
the bay in all substantial new developments,
with a minimum of bay filling.
moderating the climate of
and
Title 7.2, Government Code.
the bay area and in helping
b. to reserve certain areas for priority water-
to combat smog.
related uses such as parts, water-related
industry, and water-reloted recreation to
reduce need for future boy filling.
($208)
($183)
($266)
Colorado River Boord
1. Develop feasible and acceptable plans
for augmenting the natural waters of
the Caloroda River System, and the
implementation of those plans by the
Federal Government and the affected
states. Port 5 of Division 6 of the
Water Code.
($89)
($114)
($93)
STATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Portion of three year program required by 1970 legislation.
AND IMPROVEMENT
F-5
State Agency
Land Use
Water Resources
Air Resources
Solid Waste Management
Noise Abatement
General
Colorado River Board
2. Develop and implement federal and
(Continued)
interstate programs to preserve and/or
enhance the existing quality of the
Colorado River. Part 5 of Division 6
of the Water Code.
($59)
($66)
($54)
Deportment of Conservation
1. Division of Forestry is responsible for pre-
1. Division of Oil and Gos supervises
1. Division of Oil and
1. Division of Forestry regu-
vention of fires and related forest programs
drilling of oil, gas and geothermal
Gas has regulations
lates use of fire. The
on 38,000,000 acres of state and privately
wells so as to, among other things,
prohibiting the blow-
Division of Mines and
owned lands. Specific Code and Section not
protect fresh water resources from
ing of natural gas to
Geology provides dato on
cited.
contamination. Public Resources
the air. Public Re-
sites. Public Resources
($2,764)
($3,091)
($3,101)
Code, Division 3.
sources Code, Divi-
Code, Division 2, Section
2. Division of Mines and Geology hazards
($180)
($195)
($280)
sion 3.
2205.
program seeks to identify and evaluate
2. Division of Farestry protects and re-
($24) ($26) ($28)
2. Division of Oil and Gas
potentially hozardous geologic conditions,
vegetates forest, grass and brushlands
regulates the disposal of
Public Resources Code, Division 1, Chap-
to assure water production. Specific
oil field brines. Public
ter 2, Article 3 and Division 2.
Code and Sections not cited.
Resources Code, Division3.
($311)
($446)
($671)
($1,939)
($2,168)
($2,091)
($60)
($140)
($210)
3. Division of Oil and Gos regulates spacing of
3. Division of Soil Conservation develops
petroleum, gas and geothermal wells and
small woter conservation projects in
under subsidence obatement program ameli-
cooperation with local entities.
orates subsidence on the Wilmington oil
($569)
($563)
($275)
field, Las Angeles County. Public Resources
4. Division of Mines and Geology assists
Code, Division 3.
Regional Water Quality Control Boards
($2)
($12)
($14)
in establishing standards of water
4. Division of Sail Conservation plans small
quality relating to mining operations.
watershed projects under the Federol Water-
($15)
($20)
($25)
shed Protection and Flood Prevention Act.
Department of Fish and Game
1. Department owns and operates 115,300 acres
1. Fish and Gome Cade prohibits pollu-
1. Fish and Game Code pro-
1. Monitors pesticide levels
of land most of which is waterfowl or deer
tion of state woters with materials
hibits deposition of litter
in wildlife and works with
habitat. These lands are monaged to main-
deleterious to fish, plant, or bird life.
in or near state waters.
pesticide users to develop
tain a high environmental quality for both
Fish and Game Code, Section 5650.
Fish and Game Code,
and insure satisfactory
wildlife and man. Fish and Game Code,
($416)
($420)
($420)
Section 5652.
application methads. Fish
Section 1525.
2. Prohibits mining activities that permit
and Game Code, Section
($917)
($920)
($920)
effluents or tailings to enter waters of
1008.
Trinity-Klamath River District during
($160)
($165)
($165)
specific periods of the year. Fish and
Gome Code, Section 5800.
($26)
($26)
($26)
3. Investigates oll situations where water
quality is deteriorating. Coordinates
with Regional Water Quality Control
Board in setting waste discharge re-
quirements and water quality control
plans and policies. Fish and Game
Code, Section 5651.
4. Performs studies to ossess the impocts
of various developments on water quality.
Fish and Gome Code, Section 5651, 1601
and 1602.
($1,183)
($1,190)
($1,190)
5. For protection of fish and wildlife re.
sources, provides recommendations far
madifications to construction affecting
natural flow in lakes or streombeds.
Fish and Game Code, Section 1601
et seq.
STATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND IMPROVEMENT
F-6
State Agency
Land Use
Water Resources
Air Resources
Solid Waste Management
Noise Abotement
General
Department of Navigation and
1. DNOD under the policy direction of the
1. The California Comprehensive Ocean Area
1. DNOD requires waste dis-
Ocean Development
Interagency Council for Ocean Resources
Plan will provide for (a) orderly efficient
posal facilities in marinas
is preparing the Califarnia Comprehensive
development and wise use of all marine
constructed with state funds.
Oceon Area Plan (COAP), which will be
and coastal resources consistent with
State Administrative Code,
implemented by DNOD and various county
sound conservation principles; and (b)
Section 5200.
and local governments. Government Cade,
maintaining and improving the quality
2. DNOD has convened a Vessel
Section 8800.
of the marine and coastal environment.
Waste Management Task Force
2. The COAP will express state policy and
2. The COAP will provide for wise use and
to seek equitable, practical,
criteria for land-use allocotion in the
conservation of water resources.
and economical means of deal-
coostal zone,
($0)
($100)
($262)
ing with vessel waste which
will be compatible with forth-
coming federal regulations in
this field.
Department of Parks and
1. The Director shall maintoin and keep up-to-
1. The Department studies federol water
Recreation
date a comprehensive plan far the develop-
projects with respect to its area of
ment of the outdoor recreation resources of
interest, and reports on the extent of
the State and shall coordinate his activi-
state participation therein. The De-
ties with and represent the interests of all
partment cooperates and participates
state and local agencies having on interest
in the development of recreation and
in planning, developing, and maintaining
fish and wildlife enhoncement at
outdoor recreation resources and facilities.
federal water projects. Public
Public Resources Code, Sections 5099.2
Resources Code, Sections 5094.2
and 5099.3.
and 5094.3
($49)
($65)
($72)
2. The Department designs, constructs,
2. Identifies, evaluates and inventories the
operates and maintains recreation
scenic and historical resources of the State,
facilities at state water projects, and
and identifies elements which are inadequately
manages project lands and water surfaces
preserved, managed, or protected in relation
for recreation use. Woter Code,
to the total environment. Public Resources
Section 11918.
Code, Section 541, 5003.
($40)
($45)
($50)
3. Through the medium of the State Pork System,
establishes, preserves, manages and operates
for public use and enjoyment those natural,
recreational and historical units which will
make the greotest contribution to the overall
quality of life in Colifornia. Public Resources
Code, Section 541, 5001.5, 5003, 5013, 5017,
5020-5025 and 5096.1.
($16,500)
($19,400)
($19,800)
4. Works with local agencies of government,
through state and federal gronts, and on Q
consulting and cooperating basis taward the
establishment of city, county and regional
parks, recreation areas and historical units
which are impartant to Califarnia's environ-
mental quality. Reviews stotewide proposal
for federal, state, and local public works
projects for their effect on environmentol
quality, especially OS they concern recrea-
tion, parks, open space, scenic resources
and state woter projects. Public Resources
Code, Section 541, 542, 5005, 5099;
Government Code, Sections 54220-54223.
($5,500)
($10,200)
($6,200)
STATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND IMPROVEMENT
F -7
State Agency
Land Use
Water Resources
Air Resources
Solid Waste Management
Noise Abatement
General
Department of Parks and
5. Maintains a continuing surveillance of total
Recreation
environmental quality throughout the State
(Continued)
in relation to the Department's prime responsi-
bilities, and recommends corrective measures
as appropriate to prevent the deterioration of
natural beauty. Public Resources Code,
Section 5097, 6818; Penal Code, Section 622.
($30)
($35)
($40)
6. Through its program for public information and
interpretation, informs the public concerning
the environment, its appreciation and enjoyment,
and its protection or enhancement.
($15)
($20)
($20)
1. Conducts studies of land use, land classi-
1. Assures that water of suitable quality is
1. Licenses and monitors
1. Conduct investigations
Department of Water Resources
fication, and population distribution to deter-
available to meet the present and future
weather modification act
regarding effects of waste
mine present and future water requirements.
water requirements of the State most
activities, such as orti-
disposal on ground water
Water Code, Section 225, 226, 12616.
effectively Water Code, Section 10004.
ficial nucleotion of air
and surface woter resources
($647)
($632)
($549)
et seq.
mosses by ground emis-
Woter Code, Section 229.
2. Owns or controls about 130,000 ocres of lond
($2,534)
($2,847)
($2,594)
sions. Water Code,
2. Advises the State and
2. Provides for development, utilization, and
Section 400-415.
as a part of water resources development
Regional Water Quolity
protection of quontity and quality of water
($30)
($53)
($50)
projects. Water Code, Section 250
Control Boords on poten-
resources through brood authority to in-
tiol effects of proposed
et seq.
3. Provides flood protection for millions of
vestigate, plan, and implement physical
solid waste discharges on
acres of land directly through state owned
works or management, techniques. Water
ground and surface waters,
and operated projects and indirectly through
Code, Section 229, 231, 12616 et seq.,
based upon soil character-
financial reimbursement to local governments
13750-51, 13800.
istics of site under in-
for land ocquisition for federal flood con-
3. Collects and maintoins O data bank on
vestigation. Woter Code,
trol projects. Water Code, Section 12570
Section 229, 12922.
quantity and quality of water resources,
($74)
($95)
($102)
et seq.
through about 230 stream sampling,
($16,100)
($14,700)
($6,800)
2,000 ground woter sampling stations,
4. Provides liaison between federal and local
and numerous woste water sources.
agencies in flaodploin management. Water
Water Code, Section 226.
Code, Section 8300.1, 12604.
($580)
($574)
($565)
5. Administers the Cobey-Alquist Floodplain
4. Plons under brood outhority for water
Management Act, to assure adoption of local
resources development or management
zaning for flaodplain management. Water
to control water quality, enhance fish
Code, Section 8400 et seq.
and wildlife habitat, pravide for re-
($29)
($36)
($32)
creational use. Water Code, Section
6. Constructs and operates the State Water
11900 et seq., 12581, 12582.
Project and provides financial assistance
($165)
($254)
($238)
for construction of local projects as port of
5. Provides technical advice and informa-
the State Water Facilities. Water Code,
tion to State Woter Quality Control
Section 12880 et seq., 12931 et seq.
Boards in fulfillment of their responsi-
($14,100)
($11,900)
($8,400)
bilities. Water Code, Section 13225(c).
7. Plans for implementation of waste water re-
($200)
($225)
($190)
clamation and saline water conversion projects
to relieve demands on the use of the State's
water resources for water supply and waste
disposal. Water Code, Section 230, 12984.
($86)
($180)
($337)
8. Evaluate impact of water resources develop-
ment or management action on all phases of
the environment, and evaluate the impact of
non-water-oriented projects or actions an the
water phase of the environment. Chapter
1433, Statute of 1970
STATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND IMPROVEMENT
F-8
State Agency
Land Use
Water Resources
Air Resources
Solid Waste Management
Noise Abatement
General
Reclamation Board
1. Administers the Cobey-Alquist Flood Plain
1. Exerts control over any work or usage
Management Act within the area of the Boord's
of streams in Central Valley, if such
jurisdiction. Water Code, Section 8400
usage has on impact on flood control
through 8415.
projects or plans. Water Code, Section
2. Provides and preserves flood protection for
8700 through 8723.
lands within the Sacramento and Son Joaquin
River basins. Water Code, Section 8526 and
Sections 12648 through 12658.
3. Owns about 20,000 acres of land in fee and
about 183,000 acres in easement. Water Cade,
Section 8590.
State Lands Commission
1. Administers and controls over 4½ million
1. Aids in protecting water resources from
1. Has power to limit air
1. No specific statutory author-
1. Has power to prevent noisy
acres of public lands owned by the State, in-
contamination by reviewing the plans of
pallution in leasing
ity, but the Commission
operations when issuing
cluding school lands, tidelands, submerged
proposed oil recovery installations prior
lands. Public Resour-
issues pipeline easements
leases. Public Resources
lands, swamp and overflowed lands, and beds
to placement on state-owned submerged
ces Code, Section 6301.
for sewer outfalls, etc., 05
Code, Section 6301, 6873.2;
of navigable rivers and lakes. Such manoge-
lands. Public Resources Cade, Section
part of its land management
Administrative Code, Seck
ment involves the issuance of mineral leoses
6301, 6826, 6828, and Division 3, Title
function. Public Resources
tion 2122.
(including oil and gas), surface leases, sales,
2, State Administrative Code, Section
Code, Section 6301.
salvage and other permits, and use planning.
2122.
Reviews and acts on public problems such as
2. Insures that Woter Quality Control Board
beach erosion and access to tidelands. Public
criteria are incorporated in leases.
Resources Code, Section 6301, 6321.
Public Resources Code, Section 6301.
($1,575)
($1,854)
($1,652)
State Water Resources
1. Regulates the use of all surface water (ex-
cept for ripation and pre-1914 rights) and
Control Board
conditions water rights to achieve woter
quality goals. Woter Code, Section 174.
($228)
($251)
($254)
2. Adopts statewide policy for water quality
control. Water Code, Section 13440-13147.
3. Reviews state and federal project reports
to insure that they are not detrimental to
water quality and existing Rights. Water
Code, Section 1242.5-1258.
($574)
($651)
($680)
4. Reviews actions of regional boards in estab-
lishment and enforcement of requirements.
5. Coordinates and reviews all water quality
plans, data gathering and planning investi-
gotions of state ogencies. Water Code,
Section 13163-13166.
($524)
($535)
($769)
6. Administers stote and federal gront progroms
for woter quolity control facilities and
coordinates plonning gronts. Water Code,
Section 13160.
($132)
($160)
($199)
7. Provides administration and policy and to-
gether with nine regional water quality
control boards:
a. Develops comprehensive water quality
management plans for all water bosins
in the Stote.
b. Establishes and enforces waste dis-
charge requirements to protect water from
degradation due to liquid and solid waste,
land construction proctices, droinage and
gricultural uses.
STATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND IMPROVEMENT
F-9
State Agency
Land Use
Water Resources
Air Resources
Solid Waste Management
Noise Abotement
General
State Water Resources
C. Administers pollution cleanup and
Control Board
abatement program.
(Continued)
d. Establishes water reclamation require-
ments, water well standards and house-
boat regulations. Water Code, Section
13267-13320, 13260-13267, 13523,
13801-13806, 13900-13908.
($802)
($924)
($1,008)
8. Certifies all projects requiring federal per-
mit as to compliance with water quality
policies and criteria. Also certifies pollu-
tion facilities for federal tax purposes.
INDEPENDENT STATE AGENCIES
Department of Education
1. Developing the report of the
Citizens' Advisory Committee
on Conservation Education.
2. Working with school districts,
county offices, and other
educational units in devel-
oping and implementing con-
servation education programs.
3. Working with vorious public
agencies, citizens' groups,
and private industry to se.
cure their support and CO-
operation for conservation
education activities.
Office of Attorney General
1. As Attorney for the people, the office is
1. Counsel to state ogencies on water
1. Counsel to state
1. Enjoin conditions of noise
involved in the public's right to access to
matters. (In particular State Water
agencies on air re-
constituting a public nui-
particular public areos. (Common Low
Resources Control Board, regional
sources matters. (In
sance. (Common Law Powers)
Powers)
boards and Department of Public
particular, Department
2. Title litigation involving lands of various
Health.) Government Code, Section
of Public Health and
bays and collection of evidence of environ-
12500 et seq.
Air Resources Board.)
mental consequences regarding bay fill is
2. As Attorney for the people of the Stote
Government Code,
under way. Government Code, Section 12500
of California, may toke actions re-
Section 12500 et seq.
et seq.
garding the people's rights and interests
2. See 2 under Woter
which relate to the environment.
Resources.
(Common Low Powers)
Public Utilities Commission
1. Commission supervises construction of
1. Commission hos jurisdiction to require:
1. Commission has taken
1. Takes corrective action on
existing and new highway-railroad grade
construction, mointenance and opero-
on active role before
noise emission by railroad
crossings permitting new land uses. Public
tion of any plant or system of water,
the Federal Power
aperations and bus lines.
Utilities Code, Section 1201 et seq.
gas, electric communication public
Commission to assure
Public Utilities Code,
2. Asserts jurisdiction of electric plant sites,
utilities and transportation componies
adequate quantities of
Section 768.
electric power line routes and gas trons.
in such o manner as to pramote the
natural gas to improve
mission systems and issues certificates of
health and safety of employees, custo-
oir quality.
public convenience and necessity for new
mers and the public. Public Utilities
2. Commission has recog-
water, gas, electric and communications
Code, Section 701, 768,
nized the additional
utilities. Public Utilities Code, Section 762.
($135)
($163)
($163)
expenses of low sulphur
($900)
($1,020)
($1,025)
2. Grants or denies certificates of public
fuel oil supplies for
3. Grants or denies certificates for air, highway,
convenience and necessity for new
electric power genera-
or other transportation services.
water systems and moy condition such
tion to reduce air pollu-
4. Orders conversion of overhead electric and
certificates to promote environmental
tion. Asserts jurisdiction
communications utility lines to underground.
quality. Public Utilities Cade,
over electric plant sites,
Public Utilities Code, Section 768.
Section 768.
electric power line routings
5. Issues rules governing installation of under-
3. Issues General Orders governing sofety,
and gos tronsmission
grounding electric and communication lines
service construction, operation and
systems.
and facilities.
mointenance of gos, electric, water and
($10)
($10)
($10)
STATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND IMPROVEMENT
F-10
State Agency
Land Use
Water Resources
Air Resources
Solid Waste Management
Noise Abotement
General
Public Utilities Commission
communication systems. Public
(Continued)
Utilities Code, Section 768.
4. Orders extension rules for gas, electric,
water and communications systems.
University of California
1. Collects information on soil and vegetation
1. Collects information on environmental
1. Collects information on
1. Conducts problem-solving
1. Conducts problem-solving
1. The Legislature hos found
types; develops soil and plant-climate maps;
aspects of water resources, such as
environmental aspects
research on:
research on certain aspects
and declared that the Uni-
maintains ecologically undisturbed areas in
quality of ground water.
of air resources.
Waste disposal and man-
of noise abotement.
versity of California is the
U.C. Natural Land and Water Reserves System.
2. Conducts prablem-salving research on:
2. Conducts problem-sal-
agement; incineration of
primary state-supported oca-
2. Conducts prablem-solving research on:
Water quality factors such as organic
ving research on:
industrial and urban solid
demic agency for research.
Land-use planning; park planning and man-
wastes, salts, nitrotes, pesticides, and
Auto engine develop-
wastes; management and
Education Code, Section
agement; recreational and wildlands conser-
trace elements in surface and ground
ment; effects of smag
disposal of agricultural
22550.
vation, development, and management;
waters; eutrophication; drainage; waste
on human and animal
salid wastes; new woste
environmental horticulture, landscaping and
water and sewage treatment; aquatic
health, and plants;
disposal processes.
design; watershed management; land resour-
life in relation to pollution and other
models simulating
2. Trains specialists in
ces evaluation; agricultural production
environmental changes; watershed
atmospheric pollution
disciplines related to
proctices in relation to land resources;
management; estuarine and marine
and its effects; power-
above activities.
environmental taxicology and pesticide
pollution problems; marine resources
generating; industrial
3. Extends the information
residues; ecology and geology of land areas
and oceanogrophy; sea water and
and agricultural sour-
derived from research
-- alpine, forest, desert and other wildlonds,
brackish water demineralization;
ces; instrumentation
through a public educa-
coastline, etc.
public health aspects of water supply,
development, effects
tion program that includes
3. Extends the information derived from research
urban omenities involving water.
of air pollution on
advice and counsel to local
through a public education program that includes
3. Extends the information derived from
solar radiation and
governmental officials.
advice and counsel to local governmental
research through a public education
other aspects of the
officials.
progrom that includes odvice and
environment; micra-
4. Makes recommendations on pest control to
counsel to locol governmentol officials.
climates, inversion
protect public health and environment; provides
4. Provides data and expertise to Water
layers and other
information (pesticide residue data, etc.) on
Resources Control 3oord and other
meteorological aspects
which environmental quality standards can be
regulatory agencies,
of air pollution; psy-
based.
5. Trains specialists in disciplines relating
chological, sociologi-
5. Trains speciolists in disciplines reloted to
to the above activities.
col, legal, economic
above activities.
and political aspects
of air pollution.
3. Extends the information
derived from research
through a public educo-
tion program that includes
advice and counsel to
local governmental
officials.
4. Provides data to Air
Resources Board and
other regulatory agencies
on which quality standards
can be based.
5. Trains speciolists in
disciplines relating to
above activities.
STATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND IMPROVEMENT
F-11
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
Office of Planning and
The Office serves the Governor and his cabinet as staff for long-range planning and research.
Research
In this capacity the Office has been directed to:
1. Assist in the formulation, evaluation and updating of lang-range goals and policies for land
5. Coordinate the development and operation of o statewide environmental monitoring system to
use, population growth and distribution, urban expansion, open spoce, resources preservation
assess the implications of growth and development trends on the environment and to identify of
and utilization, and other factors which shape statewide development patterns and significantly
on early time, potential threats to public health, natural resources and environmental quality.
influence the quality of the State's environment.
6. Coordinate, in conjunction with appropriate state, regional, and local agencies, the development
2. Assist in the orderly preparation by apprapriate state departments and agencies of intermediate
of objectives, criteria and procedures for the orderly evaluation and report of the impact of public
and short-ronge functional plans to guide programs of transportation, water development, open
and private actions on the environmental quality of the State.
space, recreotion and other functions which relate to the protection and enhancement of the
State's environment.
7. Coordinate research activities of State Government directed to the growth and development of the
State and the preservation of environmental quality.
3. Regularly evaluate plans and programs of departments and agencies of State Government,
identify conflicts or omissions, and recommend new state policies, programs and actions
8. Assist the Governor in the preparation of Environmental Goals and Policy reports which shall
required to resolve conflicts, advance statewide environmental goals and to respond to
include:
emerging environmental problems and apportunities.
O. An overview, looking 20 to 30 years ahead, of state growth and development and a statement
of approved state environmental goals and objectives, including those directed to land use,
4. Assist the Department of Finance in preparing, as part of the onnual state budget, on integrated
population growth and distribution, urban expansion and the conservation of natural resources.
program of priority actions to implement state functional plans and to achieve statewide
b. Description of new and revised state policies, programs and other actions of the Executive
environmental gools and objectives and take other octions to assure that the program budget,
and Legislative branches required to implement statewide environmental goals, including
submitted annually to the Legisloture, contoins information reporting the achievement of stote
intermediate-ronge plans and actions directed to natural resources, humon resources and
goals and objectives by departments and agencies of State Government.
transportation. Government Code 65025 et seq.
($188)
($234)
($163)
STATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND IMPROVEMENT
F-12
!
/
5
E
,
the
&
NY