Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564990",
    "label": "[Environment] - Environmental Quality Study Council Progress Report, February 1971",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564990"
}

{
    "id": "118564990",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564990",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "[Environment] - Environmental Quality Study Council Progress Report, February 1971",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564990",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Reports"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-001-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-001-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-001-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564990",
    "naId": 118564990,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-001-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "bfa3780bfc5a44cd",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: [Environment] - Environmental Quality\nStudy Council Progress Report, February 1971\nBox: P36\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nPRESS\nState\nof\nCalifornia\nEnvironmental\nQuality\nStudy\nCouncil\nProgress\nReport\nFebruary\n1071\nState\nof\nCalifornia\nEnvironmental\nQuality\nStudy\nCouncil\nProgress\nReport\nFebruary\n1971\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nPage\nLETTER OF TRANSMITTAL\ni\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nii\nCOUNCIL MEMBERSHIP\niii\nPREFACE\nV\nSUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS\n1\nINTRODUCTION\n2\nThe State's Strained Carrying Capacity\n2\nAir Pollution: From a Regional to a Statewide Problem\n2\nPopulation Distribution on a National Scale\n3\nGovernmental Limitation and Fragmentation\n3\nThe Solution: A Comprehensive Statewide Mechanism\n4\nImmediate Action for Metropolitan Crisis Areas\n4\nThe Growth Ethic\n5\nDISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS\n6\nAN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD\n6\nThe Need for a New Approach\n6\nCoordination is Not Enough\n6\nAn Environmental Management Structure\n7\nThe Time is Now\n8\nThe Organization\n8\nThe Board\n9\nRegional Boards\n9\nAreas Regulated\n9\nControl of Other Governmental Entities\n11\nCitizen Involvement and Standing to Sue\n11\nA Board VS. Department\n12\nWhat Will Be Different under a New Structure\n13\nNECESSARY IMMEDIATE ACTION\n13\nAn Emergency Air Quality Measure\n14\nEarliest Possible Relief\n14\nLong Term Measures\n15\nBasin Carrying Capacity: There is a Limit\n15\nPopulation Concentration and Public Health\n16\nCritical Air Basins: What Are Their Population Limits\n17\nOTHER CRITICAL ISSUES\n17\nState Planning\n17\nCoastline Protection\n17\nStatewide Open Space Acquisition and Preservation\n17\nRecreational and Second Home Developments\n18\nGas Tax Diversion\n18\nPublic Information\n19\nTable of Contents (continued)\nPage\nCOUNCIL ACTIVITIES\n20\nTHE COUNCIL'S SECOND YEAR\n20\nThe Search for Long Range Solutions: Council Hearings\n20\nCommittee Activities\n20\nStaff Activities\n20\nRecommendations for Immediate Action\n21\nSan Diego\n21\nLivermore\n21\nSanta Rosa\n22\nOTHER HEARINGS\n23\nMillbrae\n23\nLos Angeles\n23\nFresno and San Francisco\n24\nYouth and the Environment\n24\nFURTHER RESULTS FROM THE COUNCIL'S FIRST YEAR\n24\nPalm Springs\n24\nInglewood\n25\nPalmdale\n25\nMalibu\n26\nHuntington Beach\n27\nMEDIA COVERAGE\n28\nFUTURE OBJECTIVES\n28\nTHE COUNCIL IN RETROSPECT\n29\nAPPENDICES\nA. Resolution - Emergency Air Quality Measures\nAl\nB. Resolution - Basin Carrying Capacity Study\nBl\nC. Schedule of Council and Committee Activities\nCl\nD. Public Hearing and Study Session Participants\nD1\nE. Environmental Quality Study Council - The\nEnabling Legislation\nEl\nF. Chart - State of California Activities Affecting\nEnvironmental Protection and Improvement\nFl\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA\nRONALD REAGAN, Governor\nENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STUDY COUNCIL\nSACRAMENTO\nFebruary 1, 1971\nCALIFORNIA\nHonorable Ronald Reagan\nGovernor of California\nHonorable Ed Reinecke\nLieutenant Governor, and\nPresident of the Senate\nHonorable James R. Mills\nPresident pro Tempore, and\nMembers of the State Senate\nHonorable Bob Moretti\nSpeaker, and Members of the\nState Assembly\nGentlemen:\nIn compliance with Section 16055 of the Government\nCode, the second Progress Report of the State\nEnvironmental Quality Study Council is hereby\nsubmitted. The report covers the activities of\nthe Council during 1970, and recommends legislative\naction for the 1971 Session.\nThe Council trusts that its efforts, in proposing\ngovernmental mechanisms for the control and\nenhancement of our environment and in recommending\nimmediate steps toward solution of our more crucial\nproblems, will prove helpful to the Governor and\nthe Legislature.\nSubmitted on behalf of the members of the Council.\nRespectfully\nDavid & Baber David\nDavid L. Baker\nChairman\n- i -\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nThe Council expresses its sincere thanks to those\nwho have aided and supported its activities during\nthe past year: members of the Legislature, their\ncommittees and consultants; the Lieutenant Governor\nand his staff, who have provided an important Council\nliaison to the Administration; the Environmental\nPolicy Committee task team who assisted in the\npreparation of the inventory of State of California\nActivities Affecting Environmental Protection and\nImprovement (Appendix F); the environmentally\ninvolved entities of State government; and the\nnumerous conservation and environmental groups,\nboth quasi-governmental and public. We are also\nindebted to Mr. Graham O. Smith for the cover design\nand for technical assistance in the preparation of\nthis report.\nWe again express our gratitude to those who gave of\ntheir time and efforts to participate in our public\nhearings, and to those who have contributed their\nspecialized knowledge to our study sessions. (See\nAppendix D.) We are grateful, too, for the warm\nhospitality enjoyed in the cities in which we have\nmet.\nThe Council especially appreciates the interest\nand encouragement expressed in the many letters\nreceived from California citizens, particularly\nthose in support of the recommendations contained\nin this report. It is a rather poignant reflection\nof our times that some of these letters are from\nthe very young, who, in another era, would have\nbeen far more absorbed in the less somber pursuits\nof childhood.\n- ii -\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA\nENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STUDY COUNCIL\nMEMBERS\nDAVID L. BAKER, Chairman\nSupervisor, County of Orange\nTOM CARRELL, State Senator\nKERRY MULLIGAN, Chairman, State\nSAMUEL A. EGIGIAN, Southern\nWater Resources Control Board\nDistrict Refuse Removal Council\nALBERT PEARLSON, Attorney at Law\nA. J. HAAGEN-SMIT, Ph.D., Chairman\nARTHUR F. PILLSBURY, Director,\nState Air Resources Board\nWater Resources Center, UCLA\nJAMES M. HALL, State Secretary\nHELEN B. REYNOLDS, President,\nfor Business and Transportation\nCalifornia Roadside Council\nELLEN STERN HARRIS, Executive\nEDWARD M. ROSS, Attorney at Law\nSecretary, Council for Planning\nRANDOLPH E. SIPLE, Attorney at Law\nand Conservation\nFRANK J. TYSEN, Professor\nBRUCE J. HELD, Sandia Corporation\nAir Pollution Control Institute,\nNORMAN B. LIVERMORE, JR., State\nSchool of Public Administration,\nSecretary for Resources\nUSC\nEX-OFFICIO MEMBERS\nLOUIS M. SAYLOR, M.D., Director,\nCity and County Members of\nDepartment of Public Health\nCouncil on Intergovernmental\nJERRY FIELDER, Director,\nRelations\nDepartment of Agriculture\nWILLIAM PENN MOTT, JR., Director,\nPAUL M. ANDERSON, Supervisor,\nDepartment of Parks and\nCounty of Riverside\nRecreation\nJAMES V. FITZGERALD, Supervisor,\nRAY ARNETT, Director,\nCounty of San Mateo\nDepartment of Fish and Game\nMAURICE K. HAMILTON, Councilman,\nJAMES G. STEARNS, Director,\nCity of San Bruno\nDepartment of Conservation\nWESLEY MC CLURE, City Manager,\nJAMES MOE, Director,\nCity of San Leandro\nDepartment of Public Works\nHOWARD H. WIEFELS, Mayor,\nWILLIAM R. GIANELLI, Director,\nCity of Palm Springs\nDepartment of Water Resources\nDONALD F. PINKERTON, Director,\nDepartment of Housing and\nCommunity Development\nSTAFF\nCOUNSEL\nJOHN K. GEOGHEGAN\nNICHOLAS C. YOST\nExecutive Secretary\nDeputy Attorney General\nELDON E. RINEHART\nSpecial Consultant\n- iii -\nCOMMITTEES\nAIR QUALITY COMMITTEE\nWATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE\nAlbert Pearlson, Chairman\nArthur F. pillsbury, Chairman\nA. J. Haagen-Smit, Ph.D.\nBruce J. Held\nBruce J. Held\nKerry Mulligan\nEdward M. Ross\nFrank J. Tysen\nDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH\nADVISORS TO COMMITTEES\nLAND USE COMMITTEE\nJohn M. Heslep, Ph.D., Deputy\nFrank J. Tysen, Chairman\nDirector for Environmental\nSamuel A. Egigian\nHealth and Consumer Protection\nAlbert Pearlson\n(Land Use and Solid Waste\nHelen B. Reynolds\nManagement Committees)\nNOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE\nA. E. Lowe, Senior Industrial\nHygiene Engineer, Bureau of\nEdward M. Ross, Chairman\nOccupational Health and\nAlbert Pearlson\nEnvironmental Epidemiology\nFrank J. Tysen\n(Noise Abatement Committee)\nSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT\nHenry J. Ongerth, Chief, Bureau\nCOMMITTEE\nof Sanitary Engineering\n(Water Resources Committee)\nSamuel A. Egigian, Chairman\nBruce J. Held\nLawrence B. Perry, Senior Air\nAlbert Pearlson\nSanitation Engineer\nArthur F. Pillsbury\n(Air Quality Committee)\nEdward M. Ross\nFrank J. Tysen\nSCIENTIFIC ADVISORY GROUP ON NOISE*\nDr. Robert W. Young, Chairman\nDr. Walter W. Soroka, Professor\nNaval Undersea Research and\nof Acoustical Sciences,\nDevelopment Center, San Diego\nUniversity of California\nBerkeley\nDr. David M. Green, Department\nof Psychology, University of\nJohn D. Webster\nCalifornia, San Diego\nNaval Electronics Laboratory\nSan Diego\nJack B. C. Purcell\nPurcell-Noppe Associates\nDr. George P. Wilson\nChatsworth\nWilson, Ihrig & Associates\nBerkeley\nLudwig M. Sepmeyer, Consulting\nEngineer, Los Angeles\n*All are members of the Acoustical Society of America\n- iv -\nPREFACE\nBefore preparing this February 1971 Progress Report\nthe Council had first to decide how it might be most\neffective in sustaining and improving the State's\nenvironment. Should this report deal with the many\npossible solutions to each facet of environmental\nquality, or would it be more appropriate to address\nthe final report to these questions and instead\nconcentrate on a small number of key measures which\nwould deal with the most critical problems in the\nmost comprehensive way? The Council has chosen the\nlatter approach.\nLast year the environmental effort in the State\nLegislature was diffused into approximately 300\nmeasures. Although several good proposals were\nadopted, strong mechanisms to deal with the basic\nunderlying questions of land use and population\ngrowth were not forthcoming. The State must be\nmore involved in these critical issues. To do this,\na strong governmental structure will be needed. We\nall know that effective environmental legislation\nentails far more than defining problems and\ndeveloping technical solutions in each individual\narea of concern. The real question lies in\nimplementation, not only in terms of money and\nmanpower (although this is certainly a real problem)\nbut also in terms of governmental mechanisms through\nwhich these problems can be dealt with in a compre-\nhensive manner based on common goals and policies.\nIt is to this end that the following recommendations\nare submitted.\n- V -\nSUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS\nAN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD\nThe Council recommends that legislation be adopted\nto create an Environmental Quality Board with well-\ndefined powers and responsibilities over water, air,\nsolid waste, nuclear radiation, noise pollution,\npesticides, and - to a limited degree - land use.\nIt would be empowered to review and under certain\nconditions disallow projects of other governmental\nagencies having a significant impact on the environ-\nment. Such legislation should also include corre-\nsponding regional boards and strong provisions for\ncitizen involvement through the creation of an\nEnvironmental Quality Citizens Council and by\nauthorizing citizens' standing to sue on behalf of\nthe environment.\nNECESSARY IMMEDIATE ACTION\nAn Emergency Air Quality Measure\nThe Council recommends that the Legislature, by\nConcurrent Resolution (Appendix A), direct the Air\nResources Board to conduct intensive studies to\ndetermine means of bringing the earliest possible\nrelief to the most critical air basins and to\ndetermine what long term continuing measures are\nnecessary to cope effectively with existing and\nfuture air pollution levels imperiling health, which,\naccording to the Air Resources Board, cannot be\nadequately alleviated by existing or presently\nforeseeable technical methods.\nBasin Carrying Capacity\nThe Council recommends that the Legislature, by\nConcurrent Resolution (Appendix B), direct the\nDepartment of Public Health to conduct a study to\ndetermine, from a health standpoint, the natural\ncarrying capacity of the San Francisco Bay Area\nand the South Coast Basin, and to make recommen-\ndations as to maximum permissible population\nconcentrations for each region.\n- 1 -\nINTRODUCTION\nLast year's Council report warned in no uncertain terms of\nthe environmental crisis facing our State. One year later\nwe find that our environment has deteriorated further, while\nno adequate method is yet in sight for checking, much less\nreducing, this dangerous course. It has become abundantly\nclear that only the boldest and most imaginative measures\ncan save the State from environmental disaster.\nTHE STATE'S STRAINED CARRYING CAPACITY\nThe Council's concern about environmental problems has\nincreased in proportion to its understanding. Much of what\nseemed bold last year now appears totally inadequate. At\nthat time it was felt that innovative population distri-\nbution policies within the State would be an effective\nremedy. By encouraging or redirecting population growth\nto such areas as the western edge of the Sierras in the\nSan Joaquin Valley, the Council felt that the carrying\ncapacity of the South Coast Basin and the San Francisco Bay\nArea might not be strained to the breaking point. It is\nnow painfully evident that the carrying capacity of the\nSan Joaquin Valley itself is rapidly being exhausted.\nAir pollution is undoubtedly the most recognizable index\nof a declining environment. In 1965, Fresno, located in\nthe heart of the San Joaquin Valley, experienced 35 adverse\ndays -- days in which the oxidant content exceeded a level\nrecommended by the Air Resources Board as safe for humans.\nIn 1969, the number of adverse days in Fresno had reached\n107. Yet, this tripling in air pollution was accompanied\nby only a modest growth in population. One can only be\ngreatly alarmed to note such pollution problems in a\ncommunity surrounded by endless agricultural lands and\nvast mountain forests, and removed by hundreds of miles\nfrom any major metropolis.\nAIR POLLUTION: FROM A REGIONAL TO A STATEWIDE PROBLEM\nAir pollution is fast becoming a statewide problem. Smog\nmay be generated in San Francisco, for example, but it\ndoesn't stay there. One major recipient is the Livermore-\nAmador Valley, 40 miles southeast of San Francisco, where\nair conditions have so begun to resemble the South Coast\nBasin that residents refer to the area as the \"Smog Capitol\nof Northern California\". But it doesn't settle here, either,\nfor prevailing westerly winds carry it farther into the\nState. The Los Angeles-produced smog, an acknowledged contrib-\nutor to the rapidly diminishing air quality of the deserts\nto the east, is now being blamed for the air pollution in the\nAntelope Valley to the north. One need not be an expert to\n- 2 -\nrecognize the potential danger to the air quality of that\nvalley, given a proposed urban population of several million.\nThe truth must be told. Smog now blankets much of the southern\ntwo-thirds of California during a rapidly increasing number\nof days. This includes many of our famous resort areas\nwhere people go \"to get away from it all\". During 1970, air\npollution was a fact of life in Lake Tahoe, Lake Arrowhead,\nLaguna Beach, Malibu, Santa Barbara, Catalina Island, and\neven Carmel and Monterey. And, in world famous Palm Springs\nduring this past summer and fall, the Riverside County Air\nPollution Control District found that, on 60 days of the 88\nmonitored, the oxidants were above the level considered safe\nfor humans, not to speak of the obvious aesthetic and economic\ndamage to this community. Air pollution is no longer just a\nregional problem; it has become a definite statewide problem.\nPOPULATION DISTRIBUTION ON A NATIONAL SCALE\nUnder the present state of technology and our current mode\nof living, not only has an environmentally sound carrying\ncapacity of our metropolitan areas been challenged, and even\nthat of our great valleys, but the carrying capacity of the\nentire State is strained as well. And, of course, smog is\nonly one index. With noise pollution, heavy traffic conges-\ntion, and inadequate land use policies, an ever growing array\nof environmental ills is endangering this State at an accel-\nerating rate. Population distribution is still urgently\nneeded, but it will no longer suffice to design such policies\nsimply within the State. The problem is national in scale.\nUrban growth and population influx must be encouraged in those\nstates where the proper balance between man and nature can\nstill be accommodated. During World War II, contracts were\ndistributed throughout the country to reduce vulnerability\nto enemy attack. Now we must employ the same tactics to\nprotect large portions of this nation from a different kind\nof threat. It is obvious that California cannot handle the\nproblem of population growth alone. This message must be\ntaken not only to the Governor and the Legislature but also\nto the President's Task Force on Rural Development and his\nCommission on Population Growth. Meanwhile, we must make\nsome major changes in California.\nGOVERNMENTAL LIMITATION AND FRAGMENTATION\nOur governmental mechanisms and public policies, designed\nbasically to encourage maximum economic growth, have not\nserved us well in protecting the environment. Local\ngovernment's susceptibility to local pressures, its depen-\ndence on the property tax, and the lack of authority to\ndeal with regional, State, and national trends and policies\nbeyond its control are but a few of the obstacles to dealing\n- 3 -\nwith environmental problems at this level. The situation is\nfurther complicated by the many special purpose districts\nwithin the State, which, in their zeal to accomplish their\nlimited objectives, operate independently of any compre-\nhensive local or regional policy. At the same time, State\nagencies are primarily oriented to their singular objectives,\nwhich also often conflict with environmental policy goals.\nEven the State anti-pollution agencies are too narrowly\nconstituted to accomplish what needs to be done, while other\npollution problem areas have yet to be touched by regulatory\nactivities at the State level.\nTHE SOLUTION: A COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE MECHANISM\nAt a Council hearing in San Diego one witness, a nationally known\nlandscape architect, attributed the State's environmental\ndilemma to the fact that \"No one has been tending the store.\"\nAs he then put it, \"There has been no store.\" The same\ntheme was repeated at almost every hearing. This is not to\nsay that significant efforts have not been made in individual\nareas of environmental quality; but a stronger, more compre-\nhensive approach is needed. It is time to create an appropriate\nState and regional mechanism with adequate powers to deal\neffectively with statewide pollution problems of air, water,\nsolid waste, land use, population growth, and other environ-\nmental issues in an integrated manner. The Environmental\nQuality Board proposed by the Council could respond to this\nneed.\nIMMEDIATE ACTION FOR METROPOLITAN CRISIS AREAS\nThe major thrust of this report is toward the development of\ngovernmental mechanisms to deal with environmental problems\nat the State and regional level in the most comprehensive\nmanner. However, the acuteness of California's environmental\ncrisis does not allow us to stop here. There are too many\ncritical areas throughout the State where other immediate\naction is needed. While smog from our metropolitan areas\ncovers large portions of the State, conditions within these\nurban centers have become even more deplorable. Los Angeles\nexperienced nine smog alerts this past summer, which had not\nbeen the case since 1956. Thus, all of the technological\nimprovements seem to have been to little avail. Only a few\nyears ago there were still areas left in the South Coast\nBasin where the air quality was better than at the core.\nRiverside was such an area. This is no longer the case.\nDuring a recent study session of the Council's Air Quality\nCommittee, members were appalled to learn that last summer\nthere was not a single day in Riverside that the peak level\nof oxidants was low enough to approach a safe level for\nhumans, with the average level tripling safe limits. No\nwonder the Riverside County Medical Association has declared\nthe area to be in \"an almost constant state of emergency\".\n- 4 -\nThe Environmental Quality Board mentioned previously, were it\nin existence today, would be the vehicle for dealing with\nthese immediate problems. However, they cannot wait for such\na mechanism to become operational. It is to this question\nthat two additional recommendations are addressed. The\nfirst requests that the. Legislature, by concurrent resolution,\ndirect the Air Resources Board to perform necessary studies\nto determine measures to bring about immediate and continuing\nrelief to the critical air pollution problem that exists in\nthe San Francisco Bay and South Coast Basins. The second\nrequests the Legislature, also by concurrent resolution, to\ndirect the Department of Public Health to perform necesssry\nstudies to determine the natural carrying capacities for\nthese same two basins.\nTHE GROWTH ETHIC\nLast year's progress report described the other pollution\nelements contributing to the \"moribund Los Angeles region.\"\nAgain this year we find conditions worsened, not only there\nbut in the San Francisco Bay Area as well. In these critical\nair basins we have to change our course drastically, and do\nSO now. We simply have to slow down our growth and stabilize\nthe population of these areas according to their carrying\ncapacities. This may be hard to accomplish, for growth has\nserved us well in this country since its beginnings. But\nthe harsh reality is that unrestrained growth and environmental\nquality have become incompatible in California's metropolitan\nregions.\nDuring the past year there has been a growing public recog-\nnition that the growth ethic must be laid to rest. For many\nthis is a difficult concept to accept. After all, it is not\neasy to suddenly reverse a set of lifetime values and attitudes.\nBut our metropolitan regions are being progressively and\nirreversibly destroyed, and at such a rapid rate that only\nthe strongest of measures will be capable of saving them.\nAction is the only alternative, and that action must be taken\nnow.\n- 5 -\nDISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS\nAN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD\nThe Need for a New Approach:\nThe primary issues related to the heavy toll that is being\ntaken on the State's environment are, quite clearly, population\ngrowth and land use. Present mechanisms and policies are not\nsuited to deal with these basic factors which underlie our\nmost serious environmental problems. It is evident that new\napproaches must be instituted which can deal with these issues\nin the most comprehensive manner. The State is in need of an\neffective governmental organization not only to regulate\npollution but also to preserve open space, protect critical\necological areas, and redirect, phase and, where necessary,\nlimit growth to a level consistent with reasonable health\nstandards and a livable environment. The inevitability and\ndesirability of unrestrained population growth must be\nchallenged. To attack this question, new and strong State\nand regional action will be necessary.\nCoordination Is Not Enough:\nIf any meaningful long - or even short range - solutions to\nmany of our resource and environmental problems are to be\ndeveloped, they must reflect a broader, more comprehensive\nset of policies covering future land use, population distri-\nbution, and urbanization within our State. Coordination of\nactivities is not enough. In fact under the present structure\nit is questionable whether, even among the best-intentioned\npeople, coordination is even possible. There are within\nState government 24 departments which claim responsibility\nin one degree or another for more than 120 functions related\nto environmental quality. Although many of these efforts are\nhighly effective, seldom are they carried out in the name of\na common policy. Often these functions compete with and\ncounteract one another. Often they set the stage for other\nactions, presently outside the jurisdiction of State government,\nwhich further degrade the environment.\nMany departments in State government have statutory responsi-\nbility for some aspect of our natural environment. In most\ninstances this responsibility is limited to anticipating and\nresponding to existing trends, and does not effectively\ninclude influencing these trends. There have been a few\nexamples of effective interdepartmental efforts, such as the\nPower Plant Siting Committee and the Joint Resources-Highways\nCommittee. However, these efforts are directed to only a\nsmall fraction of the overall problem and are obviously\nlimited in terms of matters involving competing objectives.\n- 6 -\nA properly structured State body should be able to review and\nreject or approve projects and activities not only in terms of\ntheir immediate environmental impact but also in relation to\ntheir broad influence on urban expansion and population growth.\nCertainly the State Highway and Public Utilities Commissions\nare not geared to properly deal with these issues nor have they\nbeen given that responsibility.\nThere are also inadequacies at the local and regional levels.\nAlthough legislation is put forth from time to time for\nstrengthening and supporting local programs, no specific\nmechanisms have been developed for rationalizing the present\nmyriad of jurisdictions or for reconciling the conflicting\ninterests in environmental control at this level.\nAn Environmental Management Structure:\nThe point is that the problem is not litter, nor power plants,\nnor waste treatment and disposal - nor even the urban ghetto.\nThe problem is the lack of a management structure which can\neffectively and efficiently solve today's individual problems\nin relation to an overall long-range plan. The fragmented\napproach which government at all levels has historically taken\nmust give way to an integrated and well-managed direct attack.\nThe one encouraging effort in the field of environmental quality\nis the State-regional water resource management structure.\nIn this the State has its first real resource and environmental\nmanagement system in the form of the State Water Resources\nControl Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control\nBoards. The Council has used this approach as the model on\nwhich to base its recommendation for the establishment of an\nEnvironmental Quality Board.\nThe State Air Resources Board has accomplished a great deal,\nconsidering its short life span. However, its management\nstructure, as provided for in existing statutes, is inadequate\nfor long term resolution of the air quality problem. One\nsuch inadequacy is the lack of clear definition of the\nrelationship between the Air Resources Board and the local\nAir Pollution Control Districts -- the responsibilities for\nregulation of vehicular sources as opposed to stationary\nsources.\nThe State Department of Public Health is uniquely qualified\nto deal with environmental problems. However, historically\nit has been relegated to the role of academic advisor.\nAlthough the Department has produced several significant\nstudies and recommendations on various aspects of the environ-\nment, it is virtually powerless to take any corrective action\nuntil people start getting sick, which is a little late.\nDuring its 1970 session the State Legislature created the\nOffice of Planning and Research. This office is charged with\n- 7 -\npreparing a comprehensive land use policy and reviewing State\nactivities and projects for compliance with statewide environ-\nmental goals. This is a most essential effort and should be\ngiven the highest priority. However, the fact remains that\nthere is no entity within the State government that can\neffectively deal with environmental problems in a comprehensive\nway or in a manner that can insure results at the regional\nlevel in terms of the critical question of urban growth and\nthe resulting environmental degradation.\nThe Time Is Now:\nEnvironmental concern has come of age, and the need for\nmechanisms for unified environmental control has become evident.\nIn 1970 the Federal Government created an Environmental\nProtection Agency responsible for regulation of water quality,\nair pollution, pesticides, solid waste, and nuclear radiation.\nWithin the last two years the states of Illinois, New York,\nPennsylvania, and Washington have created unified environmental\nprotection agencies. Maine and Oregon have created boards with\nwide environmental powers. Hawaii has adopted legislation\npermitting unified environmental responsibility. Maine and\nVermont have created mechanisms for protecting land use on a\nstatewide basis. The Council has studied each of these laws\nas potential models for California.\nThe Environmental Quality Study Council was charged with making\nrecommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on, among\nother things, \"governmental mechanisms\nfor the coordinated\nprotection, management, and improvement of California's\nphysical environment.\" After almost two years of study, the\nCouncil can now report on this portion of its task.\nWe live in one environment. The various problems of pollution\nand of ecological damage within that environment all bear on\none another. It is essential that California create a govern-\nmental mechanism enabling it to deal with environmental\nproblems in the most comprehensive manner possible.\nThe Organization:\nThe Council therefore proposes creation of an Environmental\nQuality Board - an organization patterned largely on the\npresent water quality regulatory system. After considering\nthe various State and Federal mechanisms for unified environ-\nmental control, the Council has concluded that California's\nown Water Resources Control Board with its Regional Water Quality\nControl Boards affords both a successful and a familiar model.\nThe legislation which governs those boards, the Porter-Cologne\nAct, is generally recognized as creating an excellent environ-\nme tal management system. For reasons of standing within State\nadministration, the Council recommends that the Environmental\nQuality Board be independent of any agency and report directly\nto the Governor.\n- 8 -\nThe Board:\nThe Environmental Quality Board would consist of seven full-\ntime and environmentally qualified persons, appointed by the\nGovernor, who would also select the chairman from among the\nBoard. The Board, in addition to setting statewide environ-\nmental policy, would act as an appellate body to review the\ndecisions of the regional boards and to resolve conflicts\nbetween competing environmental values. Regional Environ-\nmental Quality Boards would operate in eight regions. There\nare at present nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards.\nThis number would be reduced to eight if all that area within\nthe South Coast Basin were in the same region. There are\neleven California Air Basins. While the water and air basins\nare not identical, their contours are sufficiently proximate\nto afford a rational basis for regional environmental\nmanagement.\nRegional Boards:\nEach regional board would be composed of five environmentally\nqualified, full-time persons. Regional board members would\nbe residents of the regions they serve. They too would be\nappointed by the Governor, who would also select their chair-\nmen from among them. The Council feels that this structure\nis a workable one, adaptable to different regions of the State.\nIt recognizes, however, that several options are available and\nhave been proposed regarding the composition of regional boards\nand that technical expertise must be balanced with public\naccountability in relationship to particular regional needs.\nTherefore, provision should be made for each region, on its\nown initiative, to submit to the Legislature alternative\nproposals for the permanent makeup of its regional board.\nAreas Regulated:\nWithin the Environmental Quality Board various departments would\nregulate the different environmental fields. Departmental staffs\nwould make routine decisions subject to appeal to the Board.\nThe Board would assume regulatory responsibilities over water,\nair, solid waste, nuclear radiation, noise, pesticides, and to\na more limited degree, land use.\nWater Quality - The present system of regulation is a good one\nand would be transferred largely intact to the Environmental\nQuality Board.\nAir Quality - In this field the Environmental Quality Board would\nabsorb the functions of the State Air Resources Board and of the\nexisting Air Pollution Control Districts. This consolidation\nwould obviate the present dichotomy between State enforcement\nof vehicular emissions and local regulation of stationary sources,\nwhich has hampered effective control of air pollution.\n- 9 -\nSolid Waste - At present there is no statewide regulation in\nthe management of solid waste. For reasons both of environ-\nmental protection and of Federal grant availability, it is\ndesirable that the regulation of solid waste commence\nimmediately and become part of the Environmental Quality\nBoard when it is created.\nNoise, Pesticides, and Nuclear Radiation - Regulatory programs\nwould be included in the new organization. The Board would\nalso pass upon the environmental aspects of power plant siting\nthrough a permit system.\nLand Use - This basic element has been a common thread running\nthrough practically all of the Council's activities and emerges\nas the key to the future environmental quality of the State.\nTime and time again recommendations are made that the State\nmust play a stronger role, using all available resources, in\nguiding physical development. According to the 1970 report of\nthe Assembly Select Committee on Environmental Quality, \"the\ndemand placed on California's resources by an increasing\npopulation has resulted in the degradation of our environment.\nThe State must play a new role in land use, urban growth, and\npopulation distribution.\"\nLand use is an area where local interests have a deep and\ntraditional involvement. While respecting that involvement\nand while also noting Presidential support for a national\nland use plan, the Council believes that California itself\nmust play an active part in meeting this emerging need. The\nState role would involve adoption by the Environmental Quality\nBoard of a State land use policy and a conservation and develop-\nment plan, in consultation with regional boards, concerned\nFederal, State, and local agencies, and the public. Each\nregional board, working with local governments and the public,\nwould then adopt a regional plan subject to review by the\nState board. Statutory direction to the State and regional\nboards would require different treatment of at least three\ncategories:\n1. Certain limited portions of the State are of such\nimportance to all the people of California that a valid\nState interest lies in their protection. Examples would\ninclude the coastline and certain mountain and prime\nagricultural areas. In such cases the appropriate\nregional board would use a permit system for proposed\ndevelopment, patterned on the procedure of the successful\nSan Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.\nIn this regard it is recommended that the act creating\nthe Environmental Quality Board require an interim\nmoratorium on coastline development pending preparation\nand adoption of the final plans.\n2. A second special category would include those portions\nof the State where the growth of population has exceeded\n- 10 -\nor is in danger of exceeding the resources, particularly\nair, which can support a healthy and decent existence. In\nsuch cases the plans would include provisions for determining\nthe location and rate of growth by incentives and dis-\nincentives.\n3. The third category is the balance of the State. In this\ncase the Environmental Quality Board would adopt general\ncriteria constituting a framework within which local\ngovernments would be free to control land use as presently\npracticed.\nThose charged with planning what is environmentally desirable\nshould be divorced from line responsibility but not totally\nremoved from the reality of government. For this reason, the\nplanning function should occupy a separate department within\nthe jurisdiction of the Board and should absorb the duties of\nthe present Office of Planning and Research.\nControl of Other Governmental Entities:\nGovernment itself, by its actions and its permits, in some\ninstances degrades the environment. Single-purpose agencies\nas now structured tend to show more concern for the achievement\nof those single purposes than for their effect upon the environ-\nment. The Council therefore proposes that the Board be empowered\nto halt projects which are environmentally destructive and to\ninsure compliance with the Environmental Quality Act of 1970.\nThe past session of the Legislature enacted the Environmental\nQuality Act of 1970, which provides for environmental impact\nreports on government actions significantly affecting the\nenvironment. The Act omitted any means of reviewing these\nreports and of insuring agency compliance. The Council\nrecommends that this defect be remedied by empowering the\nBoard to review and remand reports not in compliance with\nlaw and to bar projects which fail to comply with the Act.\nThe Environmental Quality Act should also be improved by\nborrowing some of the provisions of its Federal counterpart,\nthe National Environmental Policy Act.\nCitizen Involvement and Standing to Sue:\nContinued citizen involvement in the battle to preserve and\nenhance California's environment is not only desirable but\nnecessary. For this reason the Council recommends two steps\nto insure such involvement: the creation of an Environmental\nQuality Citizens Council; and standing for citizens to sue in\nbehalf of the environment.\nThe Environmental Quality Citizens Council would succeed the\npresent Environmental Quality Council and inherit its role of\n- 11 -\nconstructive environmental critic and of conduit of information\nand concern from citizens to government and from government to\ncitizens. The Council would be composed of seven public members\nappointed by the Governor, two by the Speaker of the Assembly,\nand two by the Senate Rules Committee. It would report to the\nGovernor, the Legislature, and to the Chairman of the Environ-\nmental Quality Board. The Environmental Quality Citizens\nCouncil would receive administrative support from the Board,\nbut would retain that independence essential to its effective\nfunctioning. It would retain the present Environmental Quality\nStudy Council's authority to hold public hearings and to make\nrecommendations.\nWhile administrative machinery is essential to proper environ-\nmental management, there can be no substitute for the right of\neach citizen to sue to preserve his environment. Such rights\ninsure that public servants remain alert to public interest.\nThe Council therefore proposes that the Act creating the\nEnvironmental Quality Board also include standing for citizens\nto sue to halt activities detrimental to their environment.\nA Board VS. Department:\nThe Council's primary objective in proposing a high level\nenvironmental protection body is to bring about an effective\nmeans at the State and regional levels of planning and\nregulating the basic elements of environmental quality in the\nmost comprehensive manner.\nIt was clear that such an organization should not include\nfunctions of a developmental nature which the entity itself\nwould be required to evaluate and regulate. It was also clear\nthat it must not be organized in a way that would significantly\nreduce the status and visibility of current efforts. The\nCouncil did not, for example, seriously consider placing this\ntask at a departmental level. Since such a proposal would\nactually downgrade certain ongoing regulatory functions from\nboard to division status, the Council concluded that this\napproach would have limited impact and be viewed as a step\nbackward, when the thrust quite obviously needs to be in the\nopposite direction.\nFor any governmental entity to deal most effectively with the\nproblems at hand, it must have sufficient stature within State\ngovernment to cut across organizational lines in the compre-\nhensive and coordinated regulation of the many competing\ninterests and activities which have significant bearing on\nthe future environmental quality of the State. The Environ-\nmental Quality Board proposed is the most appropriate mechanism\nfor meeting these objectives.\n- 12 -\nWhat Will Be Different under the New Structure:\nThe Council fully recognizes the fact that organization alone\nwill not resolve the State's environmental problems. However,\nthe appropriate organization and the laws that create it can\nserve as the foundation for the constructive planning and\naction so desperately needed.\nThe new structure would be able to plan and regulate in a\ncomprehensive manner on the basis of what is environmentally\nsound. It would provide the mechanism for giving environ-\nmental matters proper standing in the decision-making process.\nIt would provide a vehicle to guide, phase, and, if and when\nnecessary, limit development in accordance with a State land\nuse plan and policy. It would have the power to protect open\nspace, the coastline, and other critical areas of regional and\nstatewide interest. It would provide for a unified approach\nto management of air and water resources, solid waste, noise,\npesticides, and nuclear radiation, taking int account the\nspecial environmental characteristics of a given region. It\nwould provide citizens' standing to sue to protect the\nenvironment.\nOne additional advantage would result from the creation of an\nEnvironmental Quality Board as a unifying factor. It would\ngive new visibility to that part of government directly\nresponsible for environmental quality. Few people, even those\ngenerally well informed, can identify the State or regional\nbodies that regulate water quality, air quality, radiation\nexposure, or emissions from fossil-fueled power plants.\nPeople know of the existence of Air Pollution Control Districts,\nbut the fact that they are county (or in one case, regional)\nagencies which regulate stationary sources while a State Air\nResources Board regulates vehicular sources is unknown to\nmost people. People are concerned, but they don't know who\nis responsible. A focus of environmental responsibility\nwould do a great deal to dispel the public sense of helpless-\nness and frustration. Perhaps this is what President Nixon\nwas referring to in his recent \"State of the Union\" message,\nwhen he stated that there is a need to \"organize around the\ngreat purposes of government\" so that \"when we have a problem\nwe will know where to go -- and the department will have the\nauthority and resources to do something about it.\"\nNECESSARY IMMEDIATE ACTION\nThe legislation recommended above, even if adopted during this\nyear's legislative session, would require a certain amount of\nlead time to put into effect. Such a time lag is unacceptable\nto the environmental quality of certain regions and the health\nof many of the people who reside therein. With this in mind the\nCo ncil recommends to the Legislature that certain immediate\nactions be taken.\n- 13 -\nAn Emergency Air Quality Measure:\nThe Technical Advisory Committee of the State Air Resources\nBoard, in a report of September 1970, has recommended air quality\nstandards, based on preservation of health, which presently\nare frequently exceeded in the State's most populous regions.\nThis committee has further stated that in some instances\nstandards which are designed to assure freedom from injury to\nhealth cannot be attained by the application of technical\nmethods available now or in the foreseeable future.\nThe report states in part that:\n\"In some instances the standards which are designed to\nassure freedom from injury to health cannot be attained\nby the application of technical methods available now\nor in the foreseeable future. This incompatibility can\nbe resolved only by drastic changes of life patterns in\nthe most heavily populated areas. Each air basin has a\nlimited amount of air in which to dilute its pollutant\nemissions; this sets a finite limit to the pollutants\nwhich can be emitted in this air basin. When this\nlimit is approached, further production of pollutants\nmust be stopped by whatever means are available not\nexcluding limitation of population and economic growth\nwithin the area.\"\nIn response to this critical situation the Council recommends\nthat the Legislature by concurrent resolution (Appendix A)\ndirect the Air Resources Board to conduct intensive studies to\ndetermine means of bringing the earliest possible emergency\nrelief to the most critical air basins, and to determine what\nlong-term continuing measures are necessary to deal with air\npollution imperiling health which, according to the Technical\nAdvisory Committee of the Air Resources Board, cannot be\nreduced to safe levels by existing or foreseeable technical\nmethods, and to report its findings to the Legislature by\nJanuary 1, 1972.\nEarliest Possible Relief:\nIn studying means of bringing the earliest possible relief\nwhere this emergency condition exists, the Board should consider\nbut not be limited to: (1) compulsory annual inspection of\nmotor vehicles; (2) emergency regulation of the composition\nof fuels; (3) standardization of methods of air pollution\nmeasurement; (4) standardization of smog alert levels;\n(5) limitation of some or all combustion uses of fossil fuels\nduring severe smog alert periods; (6) termination of variances\nfor stationary sources which have been issued by local air\npollution control districts; and (7) removal of the present\nstatutory limit of $65 per emission device for used motor\nvehicles.\n- 14 -\nLong Term Measures:\nIn considering measures necessary to meet recommended air quality\nstandards on a long term basis the Board should include, but not\nbe limited to: (1) limitation of the number and use of auto-\nmobiles, trucks, and aircraft in the affected area, by rationing\nsystems, taxation, or other means; (2) reduction of emissions\nfrom these sources to levels below those now proposed; (3)\nrendering of all industries and fossil-fueled power plants in\nthe affected area emission-free; (4) development of a compre-\nhensive non-polluting urban transport system; (5) limitation\nof population growth in the affected area by restriction of\nsubdivision, residential, commercial, and other urban expansion;\n(6) limitation of commercial and industrial growth to zero-\nemission facilities; (7) restriction of emissions from commercial,\nagricultural, domestic, and recreational sources; and (8) develop-\nment of clean sources of energy.\nThis resolution would also ask the Board to determine implemen-\ntation plans, including control measures and timetables for all,\nor for any combination of these and any other measures.\nThe first seven of this latter group of proposed measures were\nthemselves suggested in the same report of the Technical Advisory\nCommittee of the Air Resources Board mentioned earlier. The\nimpact of some of these requirements staggers the imagination.\nThey stem, according to the report, \"from the concept that each\nbasin has a limited resource of air, into which the emission of\na specific maximum quantity of particulates, nitrogen oxides,\ncarbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons can be permitted if the air\nquality standards are to be met, and maintained.\"\nBasin Carrying Capacity: There Is a Limit\nCritical to the issue of environmental quality is our ability\nto deal with questions of urban growth and resource management\nat the basin level. In fact, in reviewing the State's environ-\nmental condition, it is clear that strong action will be\nnecessary if certain regions within the State are to remain\nsuitable for habitation.\nA critical state of clear and present danger to the health and\nwelfare of the population of the more congested metropolitan\nregions now exists. Federal, State, and local government\nactions have fostered this condition by seeking to accommodate\nnatural population increases rather than planning and directing\ndevelopment in close relationship to existing environmental\ncarrying capacity. There is a limit to the amount of growth\nthat can be accommodated under present methods of development.\nPreoccupation with growth on the urban periphery has resulted\nin neglect of the urban core. Migration of tax resources to\nnew suburbs has brought a severe decline in the quality of\n- 15 and\ncentral city educational services. Housing stocks have been\nallowed to deteriorate to substandard levels. Immigration of\nlow income population to these areas has brought radical\nincreases in welfare costs, and increases in case loads threaten\nto overload and collapse the system of criminal justice.\nAlthough these subjects are not within the purview of the\nCouncil, they are a clear indication that the natural environ-\nment is not the only aspect of urban life which is suffering\nfrom our present attitudes and practices regarding growth and\ndevelopment.\nRegional planning and regulation based on an established\ncarrying capacity for a particular basin, with provision for\nthe preservation of open space and natural resources and for\nphased rather than scattered and premature development is\ndesperately needed. Such a charge will be of utmost priority\nto the proposed Regional Environmental Quality Boards. However,\nin the case of our most critical air basins, we are in need of\nimmediate answers and actions.\nPopulation Concentration and Public Health:\nContinuing concentration of population in our most heavily\nurbanized regions has caused depletion of vital resources beyond\nthe capacity of natural processes to restore them. In some\ninstances the technical methods available now or in the fore-\nseeable future are insufficient to restore levels of quality\nwhich will assure freedom from injury to health. So long as\nthe technical methods remain unavailable, the natural carrying\ncapacities of these urbanized regions must. be regarded as\nprincipal criteria in the establishment of standards for the\nmaintenance of public health.\nYet, there is presently an insufficient understanding of all\nfactors contributing to, and interacting in, the depletion of\nvital natural resources and their combined impact on public\nhealth. The Council therefore recommends that the Legislature,\nby concurrent resolution (Appendix B), direct the Department\nof Public Health to conduct a study of the San Francisco Bay\nand the South Coast Basins to determine, from a public health\nstandpoint, their natural carrying capacities. In conducting\nthis study the Department should consider but not be limited to\nthe following factors: (1) the relationship of air, water, and\nland pollution patterns within the regions and the regions'\nnatural carrying capacities; (2) the relationship of population\ngrowth and natural carrying capacity; (3) the relationship of\npopulation distribution within the regions and the regions'\nnatural carrying capacities; (4) the relationship of land use\npatterns within the regions and the regions' natural carrying\ncapacities; (5) the relationship of circulation patterns\nwithin the regions and the regions' natural carrying capacities;\nand (6) the interrelations of any or all of these as they may\naffect natural carrying capacity.\n- 16 -\nCritical Air Basins: What Are Their Population Limits?\nSuch a study should include proposals for adequate regulation\nof those factors which it has shown as threatening or exceeding\nthe natural carrying capacities as therein determined. Further,\nsuch study should produce recommendations as to maximum\npermissible population figures for each region, based on the\ncombined relationships of current factors and their impact on\nnatural capacities. The resolution asking for this study would\ndirect the department to report its findings and recommendations\nto the Legislature no later than January 1, 1972.\nOTHER CRITICAL ISSUES\nAlthough the Council has devoted this report to governmental\nstructure and critical basin issues, there are other measures\nin need of mention whose implementation will greatly improve\nthe State's position in the fight against environmental\ndegradation.\nState Planning:\nStrong support in terms of funds and commitment must be put\nbehind the charge given the new State Office of Planning and\nResearch. The legislation creating this office gives high\npriority to the development of a State land use policy.\nBecause this is so critical to the future environmental quality\nof the State, every effort must be made by the Governor and\nthe Legislature, whether administered through the Governor's\nOffice or the Environmental Quality Board, to see that this\nimportant assignment is carried out.\nCoastline Protection:\nAnother statewide, even nationwide, land use issue is the\nfuture of our valuable coastline. To protect it from further\nundesirable development a mechanism must be developed to plan\nand regulate the use of this important State resource. The\nCouncil will actively support legislation proposed in this\nregard, and further suggests that an interim moratorium be\nimposed during the time that a coastline plan is being formu-\nlated. The Council would strongly recommend, however, that the\nmechanism created be designed to be compatible with and tie\ninto the Environmental Quality Board when established.\nStatewide Open Space Acquisition and Preservation:\nEssential to the implementation of a land use policy is a\nmassive open space acquisition program on a statewide level.\nThe legislation establishing such a program should be along\nthe lines of the 1964 Bond Act and should be directed at\npreserving important open space areas in and near urban\ncenters.\n- 17 -\nThe Council recognizes of course that there are obvious\nfinancial limitations to the direct purchase method of\npreserving open space. Other measures, such as the several\nexcellent proposals outlined in the February 1970 final\nreport of the Joint Committee on Open Space, should be\npursued.\nCertainly measures that encourage urbanization should be\ncarefully examined. The Council strongly supports, for\nexample, assessment practices which reflect the actual\nrather than the highest potential use. One-time change-in-\nuse taxes for open space lands, particularly where prime\nagricultural or flood plain lands are involved, should also\nbe considered.\nThe Council also seriously questions the validity of the\npresent policy of subsidizing the urbanization of flood\nplain lands through the use of general taxpayers funds for\nthe construction of flood control improvements. The Council\nintends to report to the Legislature later in the session on\nthe equity and long-range environmental impact of such a\npolicy.\nRecreational and Second Home Developments:\nAnother critical statewide land use issue is the proliferation\nof recreational and second home developments. The ultimate\nanswer to this question is the development of a State land\nuse policy and a mechanism to insure that it is carried out\nat the local level. This matter would come naturally within\nthe responsibility of the Environmental Quality Board and its\nregional boards. However, action of an immediate nature which\nwill combat the indiscriminate and premature subdividing of\nunpopulated lands is urgently needed. Legislation should be\nadopted to require cities and counties, before approving such\ndevelopments, to make findings, based on appropriate studies\nand reports, that a particular project is environmentally\nsound, is in fact needed, and conforms to an approved general\nplan containing the open space and conservation elements\nmandated by the 1970 Legislature. The State should carefully\nmonitor the procedures followed in evaluating these projects\nand provide technical assistance where needed.\nGas Tax Diversion:\nDirectly related to our most serious pollution problems is\nour current method of transportation. To save the landscape\nand clean the skies, the diversion of gas tax funds, by what-\never means, to develop alternate modes of transportation,\nshould once again be of the highest legislative priority.\nWe can no longer defend the sanctity of this revenue source\nwhen it continues to expand and promote the single form of\ntransportation that so devastates the environment.\n- 18 -\nPublic Information:\nCertainly no discussion of environmental problems would be\ncomplete without mention of the source of the problem -- our\naffluent society. Our demand upon the resources has reached\nan almost immeasurable level, and our capacity to generate\nwaste is equally as staggering. We have talked about the\nthreat of unrestrained population growth. However, continued\nincreases in our resource demands per capita may well be a\nfar more serious problem.\nThe vast majority of the public still believes that our\nresources are limitless and our environment indestructible.\nWhile a flip of the switch turns on the electric can opener,\nvery few people realize that the same switch depletes our\nvanishing oil reserves and pollutes our air. It is time\nthey were told the truth, for without the knowledgeable\nsupport of the public, no institution, government or other-\nwise, will really solve the problem.\n- 19 -\nCOUNCIL ACTIVITIES\nTHE COUNCIL'S SECOND YEAR\nThe Search for Long Range Solutions; Council Hearings:\nSince the first progress report was published in February 1970,\nthe Environmental Quality Study Council has concentrated on\ndeveloping long-range solutions to California's environmental\nills. In working toward the development of this comprehensive\nplan of attack the Council has relied on ten general meetings,\neight public hearings, nine committee study sessions, and\nextensive staff work. Recognized as a crucial determinant of\nenvironmental quality, the question of land use has dominated\nthe Council's fact-finding activities during 1970. Hearings\ndealing with land use in one degree or another were held in\nLivermore, San Diego, Santa Rosa, Fresno, and San Francisco.\nOther hearings were directed at obtaining information from\nspecial groups, such as city and county governments (Millbrae),\nthe automobile and petroleum industries (Los Angeles), and\nenvironmentally concerned youth (Sacramento).\nCommittee Activities:\nThe Land Use and Air Quality Committees each held several\nstudy sessions at which leaders of State and local conservation\ngroups and environmental professionals were invited. These\nwere held in San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and\nRiverside, to enable and encourage the broadest possible\nparticipation from all areas of the State.\nThe Noise Abatement Committee met and worked with the Council's\nScientific Advisory Group on Noise; and the Water Resources\nCommittee had meetings with appropriate State agencies,\nincluding the Water Resources Control Board. Individual\nmembers of these committees were also very helpful in providing\ninformation for and participating in the other activities of\nthe Council, particularly in the field of land use. A Solid\nWaste Management Committee was formed during the year and met\nwith business interests, cities and counties, sanitation\ndistricts, State agencies, and various other concerned parties\nin seeking solutions for dealing with this important problem.\nStaff Activities:\nThe Council staff consulted regularly with, and evaluated\nmaterial and studies developed by, State agencies, legislative\ncommittees, environmental experts, and representatives of\ninterested civic and professional organizations. A major\neffort of the staff was the completion of an inventory of\nState environmental control activities and their costs.\n- 20 -\nThis inventory (Appendix F), which was the first such effort\nmade at State level, provided basic information on over 120\nenvironmental activities and responsibilities being conducted\nby some 24 State departments, agencies, boards, and commissions.\nIt has been of great assistance to the Council in analyzing\ngaps and overlaps in the State's environmental effort, and in\ndetermining what alternate types of governmental organizations\nor mechanisms might be most appropriate. The staff has also\nreviewed various mechanisms, proposed and on-going, relating\nto local and regional efforts in the field of environmental\nquality.\nThe development of an appropriate governmental mechanism for\nthe handling of environmental problems was specifically\nrequested of the Council by its enabling legislation and is\ncritical to any meaningful and workable approach to the\ndevelopment of long-range solutions. In this regard the\nCouncil was greatly assisted by the extensive data compiled\nby Deputy Attorney General Nicholas C. Yost, on environmental\norganizational efforts of other states as well as the Federal\nGovernment.\nRecommendations for Immediate Action:\nDespite its search for more basic solutions to the State's\nenvironmental quality problems, the Council did not abandon\nits concern for those issues in need of immediate action.\nSan Diego:\nIn the San Diego hearing, held February 13, 1970, the Council's\ninterest was the preservation of open space, particularly\nalong the coastline. A specific issue at stake, and highlighted\nby the Council's hearing, was the prehistoric Torrey Pines\nthreatened by the developer's bulldozer. Other issues of\nCouncil concern included San Diego's rapidly disappearing\ncanyons and lagoons. The Council sought to ascertain: what\nthe obstacles are to setting aside sufficient open space in\ngrowing areas throughout the State; how those obstacles may be\novercome; and what the State's role should be in this matter.\nThe Council was pleased to note that later in the legislative\nsession the State announced the purchase of all remaining\nimportant stands of Torrey Pines in San Diego County. This\npurchase was financed by State funds, matching sizeable private\ndonations collected by concerned local citizens.\nLivermore:\nAt the Livermore hearing held March 7, 1970, the Council tackled\nthe problem of rapidly deteriorating air quality conditions in\nrelationship to urban growth, both within the area itself as\nwell as in adjacent areas. Livermore residents were deeply\n- 21 -\nconcerned about further deterioration of their air shed by the\nexpansion of transportation facilities in this already badly\npolluted valley. Another concern was the impact of intensified\nurbanization of the San Francisco Bay area on Livermore air\nquality, particularly since several adjacent counties ranked\nlow in both standards and enforcement. A resolution passed by\nthe Council after the Livermore hearing urged the inclusion of\nNapa, Solano, and Sonoma Counties in the Bay Area Air Pollution\nControl District, since these provide a source of some of the\npollution in the Livermore-Amador Valley. This resolution was\nin support of legislation (AB 479), introduced by Assemblyman\nJohn Knox, which has since been signed into law. The Livermore\nhearing touched on some of the classic problems of urban growth.\nThe Livermore-Amador Valley still contains a substantial amount\nof undeveloped land; yet it is beginning to reach air pollution\nlevels common to the Los Angeles Basin. Thus the hearing\nprovided a strong basis for carrying capacity studies recommended\nin this report.\nSanta Rosa:\nA proposed gravel dredging operation at the mouth of the Russian\nRiver at Jenner was the subject of another of the Council's\nhearings, in April. This dredging operation appeared likely\nto substantially and irrevocably alter the ecology and aesthetics\nof a unique river-coastal area. The Council's hearing led to\nthe adoption of a resolution requesting that the Sonoma County\nBoard of Supervisors, the Corps of Engineers, and other affected\nState and Federal agencies withhold approval of any applications\nfor major developments at the mouth of the Russian River until\nsuch time as the then pending coastline legislation could be\nadopted. This resolution was followed by a wire to the Secretary\nof Defense, the U. S. Army. Corps of Engineers, and the members\nof the President's Council on Environmental Quality, requesting\nhearings pursuant to the Corps' regulations and the completion\nof the necessary environmental impact reports required by the\nNational Environmental Policy Act.\nThe State Water Resources Control Board, consistent with its\non-going and aggressive efforts to protect and improve water\nquality, has since directed the Regional Water Quality Control\nBoard with jurisdiction in the Jenner area to withhold issuance\nof any discharge permit. This action is to remain in force\nuntil studies of the effects of the dredging operation on\nwater quality and siltation are completed and hearings held\non the findings. The decision of the Board left the Sonoma\nCounty Board of Supervisors little choice but to turn down the\nrequest to conduct the controversial dredging operation.\nThe Santa Rosa hearing also resulted in a unanimous resolution\nca'ling upon the Governor and the Legislature to create a\nstatewide coastal commission to comprehensively plan and\n- 22 -\nprotect California's fragile coastal environment and to properly\nguide its growth. The resolution specifically called for a\ncommission, with regional sub-units, to be charged with super-\nvising development until such a plan could take effect.\nAlthough coastline legislation was not adopted last year, the\ncritical nature of this irreplaceable resource makes the\ncreation of such a mechanism a matter of high priority in this\nlegislative session.\nOTHER HEARINGS:\nThere were several other hearings held by the Council which\ndid not deal with issues immediately at hand but which were\nmost useful in formulating long-range recommendations.\nMillbrae:\nThe purpose of this hearing, held in May 1970, was to discuss\nwith representatives of cities and counties environmental\nprograms being conducted and problems being encountered at\nthe local level. It was reported at this hearing that many\nlocal agencies had for some time been working to improve the\nenvironment in such areas as solid waste handling, city\nbeautification, open space preservation, and sewage treatment.\nIt was indicated, however, that their efforts are limited by\nlack of funds and of the authority to deal with questions of\na regional nature. And, of course, there is no control at\nthis level over the critical matters of population growth and\ndistribution or a mechanism for insuring that statewide\nobjectives, when and if developed, are adhered to.\nAlthough questions arise as to the extent to which direct State\ninvolvement is necessary, it was made clear, even from the\nstandpoint of local officials, that present policies and\nmechanisms are not adequate to match the task and that strong\nState commitments and new policies and partnerships are needed.\nLos Angeles:\nAlso in May of 1970 the Council held a hearing in Los Angeles\nto discuss with representatives of the automobile and petroleum\nindustries progress being made in combatting emissions from\nvehicular sources. The Council was surprised to learn that,\nalthough some progress is being made in terms of developing\ndevices for the individual automobile sufficient to reduce smog\nlevels between now and 1985, new population growth would soon\noffset these advances and air quality would again reach present\nlevels.\nThis hearing, and the September report of the Technical Advisory\nCommittee of the Air Resources Board, were instrumental in\nconvincing the Council that new approaches to transportation,\n- 23 -\nland use, and population growth in relation to all other aspects\nof environmental quality are vitally needed.\nFresno and San Francisco:\nAlthough almost every hearing held by the Council has been in\nsome way related to the critical issue of land use, two hearings\ndealt specifically with this subject. The first was held in\nJune 1970, in Fresno, on the subject of population distribution\nand land use capability. The second was held in San Francisco\nthe following month, on the role of large developers and the\nproblem of premature subdivisions. Both of these hearings\nclearly demonstrated the need for a State land use policy and\nmechanisms and procedures to insure that such a policy is\ncarried out at the regional and local levels.\nYouth and the Environment:\nIn November 1970, in Sacramento, the Council held a hearing\nwith leaders of various student environmental organizations\nfrom college and university campuses throughout the State.\nTestimony and recommendations were received on such subjects\nas water development, land use and coastline management, air\nquality, solid waste, conservation education, environmental\nlaw, community involvement, nuclear power, wildlife protection,\nand transportation.\nThe Council was most impressed with the sincere interest of\nthe students involved and the quality of their recommendations.\nMany of their thoughts have influenced the recommendations in\nthis report or will be the subject of the Council's final\nreport.\nFURTHER RESULTS FROM THE COUNCIL'S FIRST YEAR:\nPalm Springs:\nThe Council's 1969 hearings continued to produce favorable\nenvironmental results, Several developments occurred regarding\nthe Council's Palm Springs hearing. This hearing, held at\nthe request of the city, had been prompted by a proposal to\nlocate two oil refineries in the San Gorgonio Pass, at the\nneck of the Coachella Valley. The Council's main concern was\nto ascertain how to protect a unique air basin, as yet\nrelatively free of pollution, from a decision-making process\ntaking place outside the principally affected area. The\nClinton Oil Company, which had been planning to build one of\nthese refineries in Beaumont, has since decided to abandon\nits construction plans. The other planned refinery, for nearby\nBanning, also appears to have been abandoned.\nThe most encouraging result, however, was action taken by the\nRiverside County Board of Supervisors to permanently protect\n- 24 -\nthe County from major stationary air pollution sources. In\nearly 1970, the Board passed an ordinance effectively banning\noil refineries and power plants from the western two-thirds of\nthe County. The Board also showed a great deal of initiative\nin calling together boards of supervisors from adjacent counties\nto establish a more effective regional approach to air pollution\ncontrol. In this case the Council acted as a catalyst toward\nbringing about needed change.\nInglewood:\nIn September 1969 the Council's Noise Abatement Committee held\na hearing in Inglewood to probe ways in which noise problems\naround existing airports might be abated. The hearing resulted\nin a Council resolution requesting the Attorney General to join\nthe City of Inglewood in a lawsuit to reduce unnecessarily\nnoisy operations at Los Angeles International Airport. In\nJuly 1970 the Attorney General, responding to the Council's\nresolution, filed a \"friend-of-the-court\" brief to support the\nCity of Inglewood in its anti-noise efforts. The Council's\naction in this regard is particularly significant because this\nis the first time the State of California has become involved\nin a lawsuit to combat noise pollution.\nPalmdale:\nThe Council's Noise Abatement Committee held a hearing in\nPalmdale in November 1969 on the environmental impact of the\nproposed Palmdale Intercontinental Airport. As a result of this\nhearing the Council adopted a resolution requesting that the\nState Department of Aeronautics rescind its previous approval\nof the airport and reopen the matter in order to more properly\nconsider the environmental impact of this project. The\nDepartment rejected the Council's recommendation. Yet, testimony\nat the hearing indicated that neither the Department nor the\nFederal Aviation Agency had, in fact, considered environmental\nfactors. In February 1970, the Noise Abatement Committee\nappealed by wire to both the Secretary of the Interior and\nthe Secretary of Transportation to draw their attention to\nthe matter and to insure that provisions of the National\nEnvironmental Policy Act would be adhered to. This action\ndelayed federal approval of the project until what was purported\nto be an environmental impact report was prepared.\nThe atmosphere created by the Council's actions proved bene-\nficial in stimulating federal interest in the funding of a\nmajor planning study of the Antelope Valley. This study, which\nis to be coordinated by the Southern California Association of\nGovernments, is to provide further guidelines as to how a major\nairport can be harmoniously integrated into an area as yet\nundeveloped. This \"test tube\" project - the only one of its\nkind in the nation - is expected to cost well over $1-million.\n- 25 -\nThere is one significant aspect of the Palmdale situation which\ndoes not appear to have been resolved. Although the Federal\nGovernment has prepared an \"environmental impact report\", legal\nopinions to the effect that the Federal Government has failed\nto comply with the full intent of the National Environmental\nPolicy Act cast doubt on the legality of the federal approval\nof the proposed airport. The issue is presently clouded by\nthe prospect of suits by citizens groups, aimed at invalidating\nthe federal decision.\nThe Council, hoping to avert similar conflicts, sponsored\nSB 1108, authored by Senator Tom Carrell, a member of the\nCouncil and Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Environ-\nmental Control. This new law requires environmental hearings\nprior to State approval of new airports, V/STOL, and heliports.\nThe bill also applies to military sites being converted to\ncivilian use. The Council also sponsored SB 1077, authored\nby Senator Robert Lagomarsino, which requires that the noise\nimpact upon affected communities be a consideration of the\nCalifornia Highway Commission in their selections of highway\nand freeway routes. Council members testified before various\nSenate and Assembly committees on behalf of these bills.\nMalibu:\nThe Malibu hearing led to several exciting and significant\nactions by State government. This two-day hearing, which was\nheld in December 1969, considered the environmental problems\nof areas located in the path of expanding urban centers. It\nbecame quite clear that this valuable and unique open space\nresource, still available to the citizens of the Los Angeles\nmetropolitan region, might soon be absorbed by urban sprawl.\nTherefore the Council adopted a resolution recommending that\nan early in-depth environmental study of the area be conducted\nand that meanwhile the planning and construction of freeways\nand other public works facilities be held in abeyance.\nThe hearing created much public awareness of the problems\nfacing this unique area and helped to mobilize community\nsentiment and support for the introduction and adoption of\nlegislation to eliminate the Malibu-Whitnall Freeway from the\nState highway system (SB 801, Senator Lou Cusanovich). In\nsigning the bill, the Governor pointed out that it is a policy\nof his Administration \"not to allow public works to damage\nscenic beauty or the natural environment of California. He\nfurther stated that \"by removing this freeway route from our\nsystem we will preserve the delicate ecology of a beautiful\ngorge and mountain area that contains the only year-round\nnatural stream in Los Angeles County.\"\nIn order to prevent thoughtless piecemeal destruction of the\nentire Santa Monica Mountain area, Legislation was introduced\nNYV 26 -\n(SB 959, Senator Robert Stevens) and adopted to create the\nVentura-Los Angeles Coastal and Mountain Study Commission.\nThe commission is charged with conducting a comprehensive\ninvestigation of the regional significance of the Santa Monica\nMountain area, to evaluate the threat that development would\nbring about, and to propose policies to best preserve the\narea's ecological character. The commission bill included a\ntwo-year moratorium on State projects of over $5-million.\nThe Division of Highways had already responded to this measure\nby taking administrative action to halt all further planning\nof the proposed coast highway. The regional significance of\nthe Santa Monica Mountains is rapidly being recognized at all\nlevels of government, as indicated by the introduction last\nfall of federal legislation to establish an Urban National\nPark in these mountains.\nHuntington Beach:\nThe Council also came out strongly against additional fossil-\nfueled power plants in the South Coast Basin. After holding\na hearing in Huntington Beach on a proposal by Southern\nCalifornia Edison Company to expand its generating plant, the\nCouncil recommended that a moratorium be placed on the construc-\ntion of fossil-fueled power plants in the South Coast Basin\nunless it could be demonstrated that further deterioration of\nthe quality of air in the basin would not result.\nThe Council's action prompted the Orange County Board of\nSupervisors to deny the permit of Southern California Edison\nCompany and call for a moratorium on construction of all fossil-\nfueled plants throughout the State. Shortly thereafter, the\nLos Angeles County Board of Supervisors passed Rule 67, aimed\ndirectly at limiting the amount of pollution to be emitted\nfrom power plants. This action was followed by the adoption\nof similar legislation by the Orange County Board of Supervisors.\nAgain the Council was able to act as a catalyst to bring about\nneeded changes.\nThe issue in this case was power needs versus environmental\nquality. It was the position of the power industry that power\nis needed and that expansion of the Huntington Beach Plant and\ncontinuing use of fossil fuels is the only way to meet this\nneed. The Council felt that the issue had to be faced squarely\nand through strong action. The elimination of fossil-fueled\npower plants is the Number One objective of many air pollution\nauthorities. If the latest auto emission standards are effective,\nand if future power needs are to be met by the use of fossil\nfuels, power plants would surpass automobiles as the major\nsource of air pollution in the South Coast Basin within a very\nshort period of time.\nThis emerging problem led Dr. Arie Haagen-Smit to report recently\nto the Air Resources Board, of which he is chairman, that \"no\n- 27 -\nmore fossil power plants producing oxides of nitrogen can be\ntolerated in the South Coast Basin.\" The Council so effectively\nbrought attention to the problem that plans of the Los Angeles\nDepartment of Water and Power to expand their Scattergood plant\nin Playa del Rey were also halted.\nThe issue insofar as Southern California Edison is concerned has\nnot yet been resolved. The Public Utilities Commission has since\noverruled the Orange County Board of Supervisors, and the matter\nis now awaiting review by the State Supreme Court. Such legal\ncomplications did not arise in the case of the Scattergood plant,\nsince facilities of the Department of Water and Power do not\ncome within the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission.\nIssues such as these exemplify the need for a single multi-\ndisciplined State entity to deal with environmental degradation.\nSpecial purpose departments, commissions, and agencies often\nhave difficulty in this regard since, in most cases, they are\nassigned the responsibility of meeting a special need.\nMEDIA COVERAGE:\nAn important by-product of the above mentioned hearings was the\nseveral in-depth newspaper articles which provided a useful\ntool in informing the public not only on specific issues but\nalso on their broader implications. One article, which was\nprompted by the San Diego hearing, examined the fragile ecology\nof the California coast and stressed the importance of preserving\nlagoons to perpetuate a healthy marine life on the coast.\nAnother, which appeared after the Livermore hearing, probed the\ngrowing smog crisis throughout California and adjacent states,\nalerting people to the fact that this problem is no longer\nlimited to metropoli areas. A third article, which followed\nthe San Francisco hearing, dealt with problems created by the\nso-called recreational or second home developments. This topic\nhas since occupied the attention of various State legislators,\nwho have probed the problem in interim hearings, which could\nresult in corrective legislation being achieved this year.\nOther in-depth newspaper articles published this year as a result\nof the Council's hearings dealt with Malibu and the Antelope\nValley. The Palmdale issue rated several quite excellent\nstories, including a fine investigative piece on the application\nof the National Environmental Policy Act to this project. The\nCouncil owes considerable debt to the cooperation of the news\nmedia throughout the State in covering the Council's activities\nand in creating public understanding of environmental problems.\nFUTURE OBJECTIVES:\nAlthough the Council has put forth a number of recommendations\nand has attempted to bring about positive actions to protect\nthe environment, its overall objective has not been accomplished.\n- 28 -\nDuring its final year, the Council will concentrate on the\ndevelopment of comprehensive statewide goals and objectives\nas well as specific guidelines, policies, and standards in\nall areas of environmental quality. The Council will strive\nfor the expansion and refinement of the basic governmental\nmechanism proposed in this report and examine and make\nrecommendations concerning those public and private policies\nand actions which have the greatest impact on the environment.\nQuestions of land use, urban expansion, and population growth\nand distribution, and the policies, practices, causes, and\nconsequences related to these major environmental issues will\ncontinue to receive primary attention.\nThe Council will not only make recommendations concerning\nthe broad policy considerations mentioned above but will also\npropose corrective measures in each specific area of environ-\nmental quality. Significant emphasis will be placed on those\ntax, assessment, and other economic practices which affect\nenvironmental quality. Another important issue which will\nreceive considerable Council attention is that of environ-\nmental funding. Stated simply, although the assignment is\nextremely complex, the objectives of the Council's final year\nwill be to conduct those activities which are necessary to\ndevelop for the Governor and the Legislature a comprehensive\nplan to resolve the State's environmental problems on a\nlong-range basis.\nTHE COUNCIL IN RETROSPECT\nSome of the important aspects of the activities and accomplish-\nments cited here point to the Council's role as a catalyst in\nbringing about needed change through mobilization of community\ninterest and action. Another positive role attributed to the\nCouncil is in getting private interests and public agencies\nto reevaluate certain decisions involving environmental\nquality. Although it has been criticized for actions taken\non specific issues, changing attitudes have tended to support\nthe Council's concern about the particular proposals involved.\nNoise and airport development are now recognized as critical\nenvironmental issues; freeways adversely affecting the\nenvironment are being taken out of the State system; the\nuse of fossil fuel as a source of power in congested and\nhighly developed air basins is now recognized as unacceptable;\nand the State itself is taking a new look at the Russian\nRiver dredging proposal.\nThere is also the feeling that the Council is somewhat separate\nfrom the traditional State bureaucracy and therefore more\naccessible to those who might otherwise meet with total frus-\ntration in trying to tackle specific environmental issues.\n- 29 -\nTo the general public and to conservation groups, it provides\na forum for discussion at the State level.\nThis concept is echoed by groups such as \"Stamp out Smog\", in\nOrange County. In its recent newsletter on the Council's Air\nQuality Committee study. session at the University of California,\nRiverside, they state: \"The State Environmental Quality Study\nCouncil met and again gave the various citizens groups\nadditional evidence of the fact that they will listen, and\nthat they are willing to carry worthwhile messages from the\ncitizenry to the government.\" This view was further expressed\nin a statement from Clean Air News, published in Riverside,\n#\nin the State's Environmental Quality Study Council\ncitizens of California have found a communications channel to\nthe State government.\" Not only is this process an outlet for\nprivate individuals and organizations, but it can be utilized\nby local government as well. In addition to the Palm Springs\nrequest which has already been cited, a letter was recently\nreceived from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors\nextending \"an invitation to meet here so that some very\nimportant environmental issues can be discussed by the Council\nand the people of this County.\"\nSome of the Council's roles are confirmed by an article\nprepared by UCLA Professor James Krier for the Stanford Law\nReview. The article elaborates on the fractionated system\nof government in which citizens are all too often powerless.\nIt sees the Council as filling an important void in our\npresent system, both as an ombudsman and as an environmental\nadvocate.\nThe Council, therefore, has numerous roles. One is to develop\ncomprehensive answers and long-range solutions to the environ-\nmental problems of the State. Another includes acting as a\nsounding board for the discussion of environmental issues and\nbringing attention to these problems and increasing the under-\nstanding of all parties concerned about possible solutions.\nIt stands today as a viable advisory group with a broad balance\nof representation including State legislators and administrators,\nlocal government, and the public at large, able to respond to\nspecific problems in need of immediate solutions as well as to\nadvise on a long-range basis.\n- 30 -\nAPPENDIX A\nA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AN\nEMERGENCY AIR QUALITY MEASURE\nAPPENDIX A\nA CONCURRENT RESOLUTION\nDIRECTING THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD TO CONDUCT STUDIES\nRELATING TO AIR QUALITY IN CRITICAL AIR BASINS\nWHEREAS, The Technical Advisory Committee of the California\nAir Resources Board has recommended air quality standards based\non preservation of health which presently are frequently exceeded\nin the State's two most populous regions; and\nWHEREAS, Responsible physicians and official medical\nassociations have described this as a state of emergency; and\nWHEREAS, The Technical Advisory Committee of the California\nAir Resources Board has further stated that in some instances\nstandards which are designed to assure freedom from injury to health\ncannot be attained by the application of technical methods available\nnow or in the foreseeable future; and\nWHEREAS, No implementation plan, including control measures\nand a timetable, for the attainment of the recommended air quality\nstandards based on preservation of health presently exists; now,\ntherefore be it\nRESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,\nThat the Members hereby request the California Air Resources Board\nto conduct a study of all means of bringing the earliest possible\nrelief where this state of emergency exists, including, but not\nlimited to:\n1. Compulsory annual inspection of motor vehicles;\n2. Emergency regulation of the composition of fuels;\n3. Standardization of smog alert levels;\n4. Standardization of methods of air pollution measurement;\n5. Limitation of some or all combustion uses of fossil fuels\nduring severe smog alert periods;\n6. Termination of variances for stationary sources which have\nbeen issued by local air pollution control districts;\n7. Removal of the present statutory limit of $65 per emission\ndevice for motor vehicles;\nand to determine implementation plans for all, or for any combi-\nnation of these and any other measure; and be it further\nRESOLVED, That the Members hereby request the California\nAir Resources Board to conduct a study of all measures necessary\nAl I I\nAppendix A\nto achieve the recommended air quality standards based on preser-\nvation of health in the long-term, including, but not limited to:\n1. Limitation of the number and use of automobiles, trucks, and\naircraft in the affected area, by rationing systems, taxation,\nor other means;\n2. Reduction of emissions from these sources to levels below\nthose now proposed;\n3. Rendering of all industries and fossil-fueled power plants\nin the affected area emission-free;\n4. Development of a comprehensive non-polluting urban transport\nsystem;\n5. Limitation of population growth in the affected area by\nrestriction of subdivision, residential, commercial, and\nother urban expansion;\n6. Limitation of commercial and industrial growth to zero-emission\nfacilities;\n7. Restriction of emissions from agricultural, domestic, and\nrecreational sources;\n8. Development of clean sources of energy;\nand to determine implementation plans, including control measures\nand timetables for all, or for any other measures; and be it\nfurther\nRESOLVED, That the California Air Resources Board shall\nsubmit a report of its findings from both studies, and of its\nproposed implementation plans and timetables, to the Legislature\nno later than January 1, 1972.\n- A2 -\nAPPENDIX B\nA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING A\nBASIN CARRYING CAPACITY STUDY\nAPPENDIX B\nA CONCURRENT RESOLUTION\nDIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH TO DETERMINE,\nFROM A HEALTH STANDPOINT, THE NATURAL CARRYING CAPACITIES\nOF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND SOUTH COAST AIR BASINS\nWHEREAS, Continuing concentration of population in the most\nheavily urbanized regions of the State,and increasing production,\nconsumption, and waste generation rates have, on occasion, combined\nto deplete and cause. deterioration of vital resources beyond the\ncapacity of natural processes to restore them; and\nWHEREAS, In some instances the technical methods available\nnow or in the foreseeable future are insufficient to restore levels\nof quality which will assure freedom from injury to health; and\nWHEREAS, So long as such technical methods remain unavailable,\nthe natural carrying capacities of these urbanized regions must be\nregarded as principal criteria in the establishment of standards\nfor the maintenance of public health in the face of continued\nurbanization and concommitant increases in waste generation; and\nWHEREAS, There is presently an insufficient understanding\nof all factors contributing to, and interacting in, the depletion\nof vital natural resources and their combined impact on public\nhealth: now, therefore be it\nRESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,\nThat the Members hereby request the California State Department of\nPublic Health to conduct a study of all such major factors and\ntheir impact on the natural carrying capacities of the State's\ntwo most urbanized regions, the nine-county San Francisco Bay\nand the South Coast Air Basin, to include, but not be limited to:\n1. The relationship of air, water, and land pollution patterns\nwithin the regions and the regions' natural carrying\ncapacities;\n2. The relationship of population growth and natural carrying\ncapacity;\n3. The relationship of population distribution within the regions\nand the regions' natural carrying capacities;\n4. The relationship of land use patterns within the regions and\nthe regions' natural carrying capacities;\n5. The relationship of circulation patterns within the regions\nand the regions' natural carrying capacities;\n6. The interrelations of any or all of these as they may affect\nnatural carrying capacity;\n- Bl AM\nAppendix B\nand, be it further\nRESOLVED, That the study shall include proposals for\nadequate regulation of those factors which it has revealed to\nthreaten or to exceed the natural carrying capacities as therein\ndetermined, and further that these proposals will include maximum\npermissible population figures for each region, based on the\ncombined relationships of current factors and their impact on\nnatural carrying capacities; and, be it further\nRESOLVED, That the Director shall appoint an Advisory\nCommittee representing appropriate professions and skills,\nexpressly to aid the State Department of Public Health in the\nplanning and conduct of the study, and that this Advisory\nCommittee shall hold regular public hearings in the course of\nits duties; and, be it further\nRESOLVED, That the State Department of Public Health\nshall submit a report of its findings from the study, and of its\nproposals, to the Legislature no later than January 1, 1972.\n- B2 -\nAPPENDIX C\nSCHEDULE OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE\nACTIVITIES, 1970\nAPPENDIX C\nSCHEDULE OF\nCOUNCIL AND COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES, 1970\nDate\nActivity\nLocation\nJanuary 5\nSpecial EQSC Meeting, to consider Progress\nSacramento\nReport\nJanuary 22\nTenth Regular EQSC Meeting\nSacramento\nFebruary 4\nEleventh Regular EQSC Meeting\nSacramento\nFebruary 13\nPublic Hearing, Problems of Conservation\nSan Diego\nof Land- and Water-Related Open Space\nAreas\nFebruary 16\nStudy Session, Water Resources Committee,\nBerkeley\nwith representatives of Department of\nPublic Health and Water Resources Control\nBoard\nMarch 7\nPublic Hearing, Threat of Air and Water\nLivermore\nPollution and Diminishing Open Space\nfrom Major Urban Centers to Adjacent\nAreas\nMarch 19\nTwelfth Regular EQSC Meeting\nSacramento\nApril 15\nThirteenth Regular EQSC Meeting\nSanta Rosa\nApril 16\nPublic Hearing, Coastline Development\nSanta Rosa\nMay 6\nFourteenth Regular EQSC Meeting\nSan Francisco\nMay 7\nPublic Hearing, Role of Local Government\nMillbrae\nOfficials in Environmental Quality\nControl\nMay 21\nPublic Hearing, Air Quality and the\nLos Angeles\nAutomobile and Petroleum Industries\nJune 5\nStudy Session, Water Resources Committee\nSacramento\nwith representatives of Water Resources\nControl Board\nJune 17\nFifteenth Regular EQSC Meeting\nFresno\nJune 18\nPublic Hearing, Population Distribution\nFresno\nand Land Use Capability\nJuly 16\nStudy Session, Land Use Committee, with\nSacramento\nPlanning and Design representatives\nfrom government and the private sector\n- C1 -\nSchedule of Council and Committee Activities, 1970\nDate\nActivity\nLocation\nJuly 29\nSixteenth Regular EQSC Meeting\nSan Francisco\nJuly 30\nPublic Hearing, Large-Scale Land\nSan Francisco\nDevelopment\nSeptember 10\nSeventeenth Regular EQSC Meeting, and\nSan Clemente\nTour of San Onofre Nuclear Power\nPlant\nSeptember 15\nStudy Session, Solid Waste Management\nSacramento\nCommittee, with representatives of\nindustry, and State, County, and\nCity governmental agencies\nSeptember 24\nStudy Session, Air Quality Committee,\nSacramento\nwith Air Resources Board and repre-\nsentatives of citizens' organizations\nOctober 15\nEighteenth Regular EQSC Meeting\nSacramento\nOctober 29\nStudy Session, Noise Abatement Committee\nInglewood\nwith Scientific Advisory Group on Noise\nNovember 9\nStudy Session, Land Use Committee, with\nSan Francisco\nrepresentatives from citizens' groups\nNovember 13\nStudy Session, Land Use Committee, with\nLos Angeles\nrepresentatives from citizens' groups\nNovember 17\nStudy Session, Solid Waste Management\nSacramento\nCommittee, with representatives from\nindustry and State officials\nNovember 20\nPublic Hearing, Youth and the Environment\nSacramento\nNovember 24\nStudy Session, Air Quality Committee,\nRiverside\nwith Statewide Air Pollution Research\nCenter, University of California, and\nrepresentatives from citizens' groups\nDecember '17\nNineteenth Regular EQSC Meeting\nSacramento\nDecember 29\nMeeting, Air Quality Committee, to\nBeverly Hills\ndiscuss alternate air quality\nrecommendations for 1971 Progress\nReport\n- C2 -\nAPPENDIX D\nPUBLIC HEARING AND STUDY SESSION\nPARTICIPANTS\nAPPENDIX D\nPUBLIC HEARINGS\nLAND AND WATER RELATED OPEN SPACE\nENVIRONMENTAL THREATS FROM MAJOR\nURBAN CENTERS TO ADJACENT AREAS\nDate: February 13, 1970\nDate: March 7, 1970\nPlace: La Jolla (San Diego)\nPlace: Livermore\nParticipants\nParticipants\nMayor Frank Curran, San Diego\nMayor Bernie Gerton, Pleasanton\nJohn S. Bradshaw, President, Torrey\nMayor Gilbert Marguth, Livermore\nPines Wildlife Association\nGordon Bell, Meteorologist, State\nEd Butler, Attorney at Law\nAir Resources Board\nProf. Tony Corso, San Diego State\nDr. Todd Crawford, Valley Air\nCollege\nPollution Committee\nMrs. John Gruba\nMilton Feldstein, Bay Area Air\nJohn P. Kelly, Kensington Improve-\nPollution Control District\nment Association\nDr. Rodney Beard, Stanford Medical\nFloyd Ruocco, Architect\nCenter; Technical Advisory Com-\nFrancis Dean, Architect\nmittee, Air Resources Board\nPhilip R. Pryde, Sierra Club\nDr. Ray Thompson, State Air Pollution\nMrs. Virginia W. Taylor, Republican\nResearch Center, UC, Riverside\nState Central Environmental Quality\nGeorge Musso, Planning Director,\nStanding Committee\nLivermore\nMrs. Frances Marshall, Crown Garden\nRobert Seiker, State Division of\nClub\nHighways\nMrs. Susan Chaney\nLarry Dahms, Bay Area Rapid Transit\nRichard Pryterch\nRoy Renner, Consultant, California\nJohn Nagy\nSteam Bus Project\nMrs. Marston Sargent\nErwin Luckman, People for Open Space\nGordon Soderland\nWilliam Fraley, Planning Director,\nMrs. Philip Farman\nAlameda County\nMrs. Arthur Morley\nHerbert Crowle, Director of Public\nMrs. Jane Edmiston\nWorks, Alameda County\nSupervisor Jack Walsh, San Diego\nHulet C. Hornbeck, East Bay Regional\nCounty\nPark District\nCouncilman Bob Martinet, San Diego\nCouncilman Donald Miller, Livermore\nCouncilman Mike Schaeffer, San Diego\nArthur Futch, Planning Commissioner,\nCouncilman Lloyd Morrow, San Diego\nLivermore\nHomer Delawie, Planning Commissioner,\nMichael MacCracken, Chairman, Del\nCity of San Diego\nValle Committee\nCouncilman Ben Cohan, Coronado\nDr. Don Watson, Chairman, Clean Air\nHarold Gorham (re monorail system)\nCoordinating Council\nJohn F. Crane\nPeter Zars, Sierra Club\nAugust A. Pfeiffer, Kensington\nDr. Clarence L. Hoenig\nImprovement Association\nEdward Royce, Sierra Club\nArthur Jobla\nKent Dedrick, Southern Crossing\nMrs. Ruby Zellman\nAction Team\nHenry P. Cramer\nRobert Pearson, Citizens for Planned\nJames Clapp, Urban Planning, San\nProgress\nDiego State College\nMrs. Valerie Raymond, League of\nFrank Aubrey, Zero Population Growth\nWomen Voters\nGerald Fox, Environmental Education\nStewart Smith, Clean Air Coordinating\nClearinghouse.\nCouncil\n- D1 -\nPUBLIC HEARINGS\nSHORELINE MODIFICATION AND\nMANAGEMENT\nDate: April 16, 1970\nWilliam Kortum, President,\nPlace: Santa Rosa\nCalifornians Organized to Acquire\nAccess to Tidelands (COAAST)\nParticipants\nClaude Minard, Sonoma State College\nClarence Bob Stein\nRobert Theiller, Chairman, Sonoma\nV. M. Moir, California Chamber\nCounty Board of Supervisors\nof Commerce\nHonorable John Dunlap, Assemblyman,\nFifth District\nJohn Tutuer, Sierra Club\nROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN\nGeorge Kovatch, Planning Director,\nENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL\nSonoma County\nDr. David Joseph, Executive Officer,\nDate: May 7, 1970\nNorth Coastal Regional Water\nPlace: Millbrae\nQuality Control Board\nD. J. Everitts, State Lands Commission\nParticipants\nBradford W. Lundborg, Sonoma County\nOrganization for Planned Environment\nMayor William G. Glang, Millbrae\n(SCOPE)\nJack Walsh, Supervisor, San Diego\nColonel Charles Roberts, U. S. Army\nCounty\nCorps of Engineers\nLyman Cozad, City Manager, Arcadia\nKarl Treffinger, American Institute\nHenry J. Mello, Supervisor, Santa\nof Architects\nCruz County\nProf. Joseph Johnson, UC, Berkeley;\nHarry A. Tow, City Manager, Visalia\nConsultant, Northern California\nJames V. Fitzgerald, Supervisor,\nAggregates\nSan Mateo County\nJohn Zierold, Planning and Conser-\nJack Merelman, General Counsel and\nvation League\nManager, County Supervisors\nPhilip Arend, Consulting Ecologist to\nAssociation of California\nNorthern California Aggregates\nMrs. Mary W. Henderson, Councilman,\nDr. Cadet Hand, Marine Biologist,\nRedwood City; representing\nUC, Berkeley\nAssociation of Bay Area\nDr. Ted O'Brien, Jenner Coastside\nGovernments (ABAG)\nConservation Coalition\nMrs. Claire Dedrick, Conservation\nDr. Edward Smith, Pacific Marine\nCoordinators\nStation\nMrs. Pat Barrentine, Committee for\nDr. Joseph Brumbaugh, Sonoma State\nGreen Foothills\nCollege\nCase Hansen, San Diego County\nPaul Covell, Audubon Society\nMrs. Hazel Bond, Bay Area\nHarold D. Bissell, State Interagency\nAssociation of University Women\nCouncil on Ocean Resources\nJack Dolan, California Advisory\nCommission on Marine and Coastal\nResources\nGordon Miller, Director of Public\nWorks, Sonoma County\nJonathan Ela, Sierra Club\nStephen Johnson, Sierra Club\nGeorg Treichel, Center of Ecological-\nEnvironmental Studies, San Francisco\nState College\n- D2 -\nPUBLIC HEARINGS\nAIR QUALITY AND THE AUTOMOBILE\nPOPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND\nAND PETROLEUM INDUSTRIES\nLAND USE CAPABILITY\nDate: May 21, 1970\nDate: June 18, 1970\nPlace: Los Angeles\nPlace: Fresno\nParticipants\nParticipants\nJohn A. Maga, Executive Officer,\nW. Stuart Home, Fresno Community\nState Air Resources Board\nCouncil\nRobert L. Chass, Los Angeles\nR. W. Bergstrom, Director,\nCounty Air Pollution Control\nEnvironmental Health, Fresno\nDistrict\nCounty Health Department\nDonald A. Jensen, Automobile\nDonald Livingston, Planning\nEmission Office, Ford Motor\nDirector, Fresno County\nCompany, Dearborn, Michigan\nProfessor Harold Tokmakian,\nJoe E. Stoyack, Manager, Chrysler\nUrban and Regional Planning,\nCorporation Exhaust Control\nFresno State College\nLaboratory, Los Angeles\nJohn R. Teerink, Deputy Director,\nHoward Hesselberg, Coordinator\nState Department of Water\nof Air Conservation, Ethyl\nResources\nCorporation, Ferndale, Michigan\nColonel George B. Fink, District\nR. E. Jeffrey, Manager, Research\nEngineer, U. S. Army Corps of\nand Development, Shell Oil\nEngineers\nCompany, Detroit, Michigan\nZane G. Smith, Jr., Sierra\nJames Dooley, Vice President,\nNational Forest Service\nAdvance Development, McCulloch\nJohn Rutherford, Zero Population\nCorporation, Los Angeles\nGrowth\nMalcolm McDuffie, President,\nMichael McCloskey, Executive\nMohawk Petroleum Corporation, Inc\nDirector, Sierra Club\nLos Angeles\nL. R. Wohletz, Soil Conservation\nE. E. Spitler, Manager, Fuels\nService, U. S. Department of\nDivision, Chevron Research\nAgriculture, Berkeley\nCompany, Richmond, California\nDon Dressler, Legislative\nM. S. Thompson, Administrative Vice\nAssistant, California Farm\nPresident, Union Oil Company of\nBureau Federation\nCalifornia\nProfessor Henry Fagin, School of\nD. Allan Sedgwick, Vice President,\nAdministration, University of\nWest Coast Operations, Texaco,\nCalifornia, Irvine\nInc., Los Angeles\nLarry Kiml, California Chamber\nMrs. Margie Levi, Stamp Out Smog\nof Commerce\nMrs. Pauline Koch, People's\nAction Research\nWilliam Greninger, Sierra Club\nEd Koupal, General Manager,\nPeople's Lobby\nMrs. Cassells, Playa del Rey\nas D3 -\nPUBLIC HEARINGS\nLARGE-SCALE LAND DEVELOPMENT\nYOUTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT\nDate: July 30, 1970\nDate: November 20, 1970\nPlace: San Francisco\nPlace: Sacramento\nParticipants\nParticipants\nKeith Whipple, representing\nGerald Meral, University of\ncitizens group, Etna,\nCalifornia, Berkeley (Water\nSiskiyou County\nDevelopment)\nRichard S. Whitehead, Planning\nLance King, University of\nConsultant, Santa Barbara\nCalifornia, Santa Cruz\nThe Reverend Richard Sample,\n(Coastline)\nCenter for Environmental\nMiss Claudia Ayers, University\nAction, San Francisco\nof California, Berkeley\nMrs. Betsy H. Laties, Friends\n(Air Quality)\nof the Santa Monica Mountain\nPaul Silver, University of\nParks\nCalifornia, Los Angeles\nStephen Moses, General Manager,\n(Waste Management)\nBoise-Cascade Recreational\nRobert Von Holdt, Hayward State\nCommunities, Palo Alto\nCollege (Waste Management)\nHarold A. Berliner, District\nClifford Humphrey, Ecology\nAttorney, Nevada County\nAction, Modesto (Land Use)\nJerome B. Gilbert, Executive\nJames Eaton, University of\nOfficer, State Water Resources\nCalifornia, Davis (Land Use)\nControl Board\nFred de Jarlais, San Francisco\nRyland Kelley, President,\nState College (Land Use)\nHare, Brewer and Kelley, Inc\nCarl Newman, San Fernando Valley\nPalo Alto\nState College (Community\nSam Whiting, Attorney at Lawi\nInvolvement in Environmental\nWestern Property Developers\nConservation)\nCouncil\nDavid Jackman, Stanford Law\nThomas J. Nolan, Assistant\nSchool (Role of Environmental\nCommissioner, Subdivisions,\nLaw Societies)\nState Department of Real Estate\nMiss Ora Citron, University of\nDonald A. Woolfe, Planning\nSouthern California (Environ-\nDirector, Tulare County\nmental Education)\nLee Syracuse, Planner, California\nRobert Burgess, University of\nBuilders Council\nCalifornia, Los Angeles\nBen Glading, Regional Manager,\n(Transportation)\nRegion II, State Department of\nGregg Schluntz, Hayward State\nFish and Game\nCollege (Nuclear Power)\nMrs. Claire Dedrick, Conservation\nDennis Clark, Sacramento State\nCoordinators, Menlo Park\nCollege; and\nJack Wilburn, Sacramento State\nCollege (Plant and Wildlife)\nMiss Wendy Groner, San Francisco\nState College\nDonald Mitchell, Stanford University\nJack Anders and Christine Swan,\nhigh school students, Sacramento\n- D4 -\nCOMMITTEE STUDY SESSION\nPARTICIPANTS\nAIR QUALITY COMMITTEE\nSeptember 24, 1970 - Sacramento\nFieldtec, Inc.\nRobert W. Scholler\nPeter Bouvier, Planning and\nUCLA - Dr. Richard Perrine\nConservation League\nPollution Research and Control\nPaul Clifton, Resources Agency\nCorporation - Erwin Kauper\nWilliam Greninger, Chairman,\nWomen For: - Mrs. Livia Donovan\nStatewide Coalition for Clean\nPlanning and Conservation\nAir\nLeague - Martin M. Leveedale\nJohn A. Maga, Executive Officer,\nU. S. Forestry Service\nAir Resources Board\nClyde A. O'Dell\nLawrence B. Perry, Department\nMorris W. McCutchen\nof Public Health\nQuanti Folay, San Bernardino\nLarry Ruff, Clean Air Council\nSun-Telegram\nof San Diego\nBill Lair, KPRO Radio\nRoger Sperling, Project Clean\nAir\nLAND USE COMMITTEE\nPeter Zars, Coalition for Clean\nAir; Sierra Club\nJuly 16, 1970 - Sacramento\nNovember 24, 1970 - Riverside\nSamuel Cullers, Assistant Chief,\nState Office of Planning\nClean Air Now\nRobert Goodier, Division of Soil\nDonald Bauer, Chairman\nConservation\nDonald E. Zimmer\nJames D. Stokes, Department of\nStatewide Air Pollution Research\nFish and Game\nCenter, University of California\nEdward Williams, Eckbo, Dean,\nat Riverside\nAustin and Williams, Architects\nDr. Joseph V. Behar\nJohn C. Williamson, Legislative\nDr. Paul Miller\nJoint Committee on Open Space\nDr. Peter J. Slota, Jr.\nSamuel E. Wood, Consultant\nDr. Edgar L. Stephens\nDr. C. Ray Thompson\nNovember 9, 1970 - San Francisco\nCoalition for Clean Air\nBill Greninger, Chairman\nHonorable Jean Fassler,\nRay Bogucki\nSupervisor, San Mateo County\nClean Air Council\nMrs. Claire Dedrick, Peninsula\nDr. Alan Schneider\nConservation Center\nSierra Club\nFrank M. Stead, Planning and\nJohn Zierold\nResearch Associates\nNathaniel Van de Verg\nEric Carruthers, President,\nStamp Out Smog\nCalifornia Coastal Planners\nMrs. Pauline W. Koch\nMrs. Celia von der Muhll,\nMrs. Jear Somers\nPresident, Save the Coast\nJames Somers\nMrs. Barbara Milhous and\nAmerican Medical Association\nTed Milhous, Jenner Coalition\nGerschen L. Schaefer, M.D.\nAlfred Heller, President,\nCitizens for Clean Air\nCalifornia Tomorrow\nWallace J. Duffy\nFrederick Styles, Assembly Science\nWrite fc Your Life\nand Technology Advisory Council\nMrs. Eda Rossman\nDr. Robert Girard, Stanford Law\nSave Our Children\nSchool\nMrs. Toni Sample\nEdward Royce, Sierra Club\nD5 I I\nCommittee Study Session Participants\nLAND USE COMMITTEE (continued)\nAlex Man, Federation of Organi-\nzations for Conserving Urban\nGeorg Treichel, Member, Governor's\nSpace (FOCUS)\nCoastal Commission\nMrs. Faye'S. Hove, California\nGail Achterman, Save San Francisco\nCitizens' Freeway Association\nBay Association\nDr. Norman Saunders, Department\nMrs. Janet Gray Hayes, Save Our\nof Geography, UC, Santa Barbara\nValley Action Committee\nMr. and Mrs. Tasker L. Edmiston,\nWilliam D. Evers, Open Space\nDesert Protective Council, Inc.\nAction Planning; Conservation\nDr. Sherman Griselle, American\nLeague\nInstitute of Planners\nMrs. Dorothy Erskine, People for\nMrs. Howard Allen, Desert\nOpen Space\nProtective Council, Inc.\nDr. Kenneth Hayes, Santa Clara\nGerald Fox, Environmental\nCounty Medical Society, Environ-\nClearinghouse\nmental Health Committee\nLyle Taylor (re Owens Valley)\nLeslie E. Carbert, Associated\nDr. Gary Herbertson, United\nRegional Citizens\nMethodist Church\nHarold A.. Berliner, District\nWilliam A. Wilcoxsen, Attorney\nAttorney, County of Nevada\nMrs. Virginia Kessels, The\nThomas Bonnicksen, Commissioner,\nWatchful Eye\nState Department of Parks and\nBruce G. Sharky, College of\nRecreation\nEnvironmental Design,\nWayne M. Swan, American Institute\nCalifornia Polytechnic\nof Planners\nMrs. Pauline Koch, People's\nDaniel Kane, Jr., Committee for\nAction Research\nGreen Foothills\nGraham O. Smith, Save Malibu\nGraham O. Smith, Save Malibu\nCanyon Committee\nCanyon Committee\nCharles A. Grayer\nWilliam E. Spangle, Sr., Committee\nJohn A. Hobbs\nfor Green Foothills\nMrs. Dorothea Edmiston, Citizens\nJohn M. Haley, State Department\nCoordinate for Century III\nof Water Resources\nGeorge Nishimura\nG. McHinley, University of\nNovember 13, 1970 - Los Angeles\nSouthern California\nSamuel Cullers, State Office of\nPlanning\nNOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE\nWilliam Atherton, Assembly Science\nand Technology Advisory Council\nOctober 29, 1970 - Inglewood\nBarry Siegel, Urban Coalition\nLiaison\n(This session was held by\nFrederick Eissler, Scenic Shore-\nCommittee, EQSC staff and\nline Preservation Conference\nCounsel, and the newly-\nMrs. Ellen Stern Harris, Council\nappointed Scientific Advisory\nfor Planning and Conservation\nGroup on Noise, listed in\nRichard Ball, Sierra Club\nAppendix\nMrs. Pat Ellison, Environmental\nCoalition of Ventura County\nMrs. Darlene Mitcheltree, The\nWatchful Eye\nDr. L. Douglas DeNike, Zero\nPopulation Growth\n- D6 -\nCommittee Study Session Participants\nSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE\nNovember 17, 1970 - Sacramento\nSeptember 15, 1970 - Sacramento\nA. Harry Astor, Attorney at Law\nJohn Moscone, Golden Gate\nZ. Harry Astor, Attorney at Law\nDisposal Company\nJohn Moscone, Golden Gate\nLester A. Haug, County Sani-\nDisposal Company\ntation Districts, Los Angeles\nWilliam Ohanesian, System\nRobert Bargman, Director, Los\nDisposal Service\nAngeles City Bureau of\nCarl Sexton, Los Angeles\nSanitation\nBy-Products Company\nRalph McGill, California Refuse\nDewey Vittori, Oakland\nRemoval Council\nScavenger Company\nDon Benninghoven, League of\nTom Walters, Redwood Empire\nCalifornia Cities\nDisposal Corporation\nJohn Tooker, Resources Agency\nRobert Bargman, Director, Los\nJerome B. Gilbert, Water Resources\nAngeles City Bureau of\nControl Board\nSanitation\nLloyd Lapham, Consultant, Senate\nLester A. Haug, County Sani-\nSelect Committee on Environmental\ntation Districts of Los Angeles\nControl\nDon Benninghoven, League of\nJames Cornelius, Water Resources\nCalifornia Cities\nControl Board\nRandy Hamilton, League of\nPress representatives from:\nCalifornia Cities\nAssociated Press, Capitol News\nSam Sanchez, League of\nService, Metromedia News,\nCalifornia Cities\nSacramento Bee, Sacramento\nTerry McGuire, State Air\nUnion, and United Press\nResources Board\nInternational\nDr. John M. Heslep, State\nDepartment of Public Health\nWATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE\nLawrence A. Burch, State\nDepartment of Public Health\nFebruary 16, 1970, and June 5, 1970-\nPeter A. Rogers, State Water\nSacramento\nResources Control Board\nJames Pardau, Consultant,\nWater Resources Control Board\nAssembly Committee on Natural\nJerome B. Gilbert, Executive\nResources and Conservation\nOfficer\nLloyd Lapham, Consultant,\nWinfred W. Adams, Member\nSenate Select Committee on\nNorman B. Hume, Member\nEnvironmental Control\nRonald B. Robie, Member\nKenneth L. Woodward, Chief,\nWater Rights Division\nDepartment of Public Health\nHenry J. Ongerth, Chief\nBureau of Sanitary Engineering\n- D7 -\nAPPENDIX E\nENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STUDY COUNCIL -\nENABLING LEGISLATION\nAPPENDIX E\nENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STUDY COUNCIL -\nTHE ENABLING LEGISLATION\nPART 11. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STUDY\nCOUNCIL [NEW]\nChapter\nSection\n1. State Policy\n16000\n2. Definitions\n16020\n3. Organization and Membership of the Council\n16050\n4. Powers and Duties of the Council\n16080\nPart 14 added by Stats.1968, c. 1380, p. 2711, § 1; Stats.1968, c. 1395, p.\n2751, § 1.\nCHAPTER 1. STATE POLICY\nSec.\n16000. Finding.\n16001. Need of study.\nChapter 1 added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2711, § 1; Stats.1968, c. 1395,\np. 2751, § 1.\n$ 16000. Finding\nThe Legislature finds that:\n(a) Rapid population growth, economic development and urbanization have affected\nthe quality of California's natural environment.\n(b) The proliferation of noise from transportation sources have led to the exposure\nof large sectors of the populace to an unacceptable degree of noise.\n(c) The anticipated rates of construction of new airports and extension of exist-\ning airports, construction of freeways and mass rapid transit lines. and the introduc-\ntion into service of intraurban short taknoff and land and vertical takeoff and land\naircraft operating at low cruising altitudes will rapidly escalate the urban noise\nproblem unless systematic preventive measures are taken.\n(d) There is a large discrepancy between the technology available for control of\nurban noise and the degree to which it is being utilized in practice. through such\nmeans as land use planning. noise control provisions in building design and con-\nstruction. and legal control over the movements of noise-producing transportation\nvehicles.\n(c) Improvement of the quality of California's physical environment consistent\nwith the maximum benefit to the people of the state is a matter of statewide, region-\nal. and local concern calling for coordinated public and private action in the interest\nof the health. safety. and welfare of present and future generations,\n(Added by Stats.1968, (', 1380, p. 2711, § 1: Stats.1968, c. 1395, p. 2751, § 1. Amend-\ned by Stats,1969, C. 1012, p. - $ 1.)\nThe word \"consistent\" following \"envir-\nonnient\" was not contained in the addition\nby Stats,1968. c. 1380, p. 2711, $ 1.\nAsterisks\n$\nIndicate deletions by amendment\n- El -\n§ 16001\nGOVERNMENT CODE\n§ 10001. Need of study\nAn In-depth study is needed:\n(a) To define the interrelationship of resources management, land use and trans-\nportation policies, and other matters, including noise emissions, that affect environ-\nmental quality.\n(b) To determine whether existing approaches to the protection, management, and\nImprovement of environmental quality are adequate for effective, long-range solu-\ntions to the problems.\n(c) To recommend appropriate action necessary to effectively protect, manage, and\nimprove environmental quality on a long-range basis.\n(Added by Stats.1968, c. 1380, P. 2711, § 1; Stats.1968, C. 1395, p. 2752, § 1.)\nThe text of both 1968 additions was iden-\ntical.\nCHAPTER 2. DEFINITIONS\nSec.\n16020. Council.\n10021. Environmental quality.\n16022. Waste management.\nChapter 2 added by Stats.1968. c. 1380, p. 2711, § 1; Stats.1968, C. 1395, p.\n2752, $ 1.\n$ 16020. Council\n\"Council\" means the State Environmental Quality Study Council.\n(Added by Stats.1968, c. 1380, p. 2711, § 1: Stats.1968, e. 1395, p. 2752, $ 1.)\nThe text of both 1963 additions was iden-\ntical.\n§ 16021. Environmental quality\n\"Environmental quality\" means the characteristics or conditions and relative de-\ngree of excellence of the physical and biological constituents of man's surroundings.\n(Added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2711, § 1; Stats.196S, c. 1395, p. 2752, § 1.)\nThe text of both 1968 additions was iden-\ntical.\n§ 16022. Waste management\n\"Waste management\" means the organized and systematic actions by which waste\nproducts are utilized, or collected. processed, and disposed without an unreasonable\nadverse effect upon man's environment.\n(Added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2711, § 1: Stats.1908, C. 1395, p. 2752, § 1.)\nThe text of both 1968 additions was iden-\ntical.\nCHAPTER 3. ORGANIZATION AND MEMBERSHIP\nOF THE COUNCIL\nSoc.\n16050. Existence.\n16051. Composition.\n16052. Nonvoting members.\n16053. Chairman.\n10054. Termination of council.\n16055. Reports.\nChapter 3 added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2712, § 1; Stats.1968, C. 1395, p.\n2752. 8 1.\n§ 16050. Existence\nThere Is In the state government the State Environmental Quality Study Council.\n(Added by Stats.1968, e. 1380, P. 2712, $ 1; Stats.1968, c. 1395, p. 2752, § 1.)\nLibrary references\nStates\nC.J.S. States $5 52. 66.\nThe text of both 1968 additions was Iden-\ntical.\n- E2 -\nGOVERNMENT CODE\n§ 16055\n§ 16051. Composition\nThe council consists of the following membership:\nSecretary of the Resources Agency.\nSecretary of the Business and Transportation Agency.\nChairman of the State Water Resources Control Board.\nChairman of the State Air Resources Board.\nSeven public members appointed by the Governor, who shall have demonstrated In-\nterest in, and knowledge of, the protection, management, and improvement of the\nquality of California's physical environment. One of the seven public members ap-\npointed by the Governor, in addition to the qualifications specified in this section,\nshall represent the solid waste management industry and one of the seven public\nmembers appointed by the Governor shall represent city and county government. as\nselected from the city and county members on the Intergovernmental Council on\nUrban Growth.\nFour members, two of whom shall be appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly,\nand two by the Senate Rules Committee.\n(Added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2712, § 1; Stats.1968, c. 1395, p. 2752, $ 1.)\nThe text of both 1968 additions was iden-\ntical.\n§ 16052. Nonvoting members\nIn addition to the members specified pursuant to Section 16051, the council con-\nsists of the following nonvoting ex officio membership:\nDirector of Public Health\nDirector of Agriculture\nDirector of Parks and Recreation\nDirector of Fish and Game\nDirector of Conservation\nDirector of Public Works\nDirector of Water Resources\nDirector of Housing and Community Development\nCity and county members of the Intergovernmental Council on Urban Growth\n(Added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2712, § 1; Stats.1968, C. 1395, p. 2753, § 1.)\nThe text of both 1968 additions was iden-\ntical.\n§ 16052.1. Same: Members of Legislature constituting joint in-\nvest gative committee.\nIn addition to the members specified pursuant to Sections 16051\nand 16052, the conneil consists of one Member of the Senate. ap-\npointed by the Senate Rules Committee, and one Member of the\nAssembly. appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, who shall\nmeet with, and participate in the activities of the council to the\nextent that such participation is not incompatible with their re-\nspective positions as Members of the Legislature. For the purposes\nof this part, such Members of the Legislature shall constitute a\njoint investigating committee on the subject of this part, and as\nsuch shall have the powers and duties imposed upon such com-\nmittees by the Joint Rules of the Senate and Assembly. [Added\nby Stats 1970 ch 163 § 1.]\n- E3 -\n§ 16053. Same: Chairman.\nThe Governor shall designate the chairman of the council. [Added\nby Stats 1968 ch 1395 § 1.]\nSee note to § 16000.\nNote.-There was an identical section of this number which was added by\nStats 1968 eh 1380 § 1 and repealed by Stats 1970 ch 346 § 9.\nSee note to § 045.6.\n§ 16054. Same: Termination of existence.\nThe council shall cease to exist upon the adjournment sine die\nof the 1972 [1] Regular Session of Legislature. [Added by Stats\n1968 ch 1395 $ 1; Amended by Stats 1970 ch 1142 § 1.]\n[1] \"1972\" substituted for \"1971\" in 1970.\nSee note to § 16000.\nNote.-There was an identical section of this number which was added by\nStats 1968 eh 1380 § 1 and repealed by Stats 1970 ch 340 § 9.\nSee noto to § 945.6.\n§ 16055. Same: Progress reports: Final report: Recommenda-\ntions.\nThe council shall make progress reports to the Governor and to\nthe Legislature on February 1, 1969, on February 1, 1970, and on\nFebruary 1. 1971 [1]; and shall make a final report to the Governor\nand to the Legislature on February 1, 1972 [2]. at which time the\ncouncil shall make recommendations as to how its powers and duties\ncan best be carried out in the future.\nThere is hereby continuously appropriated from the California\nEnvironmental Protection Program Fund as created by Senate Bill\n262 of the 1970 Regular Session of the Legislature to the council\nsufficient funds for the necessary expenses of the council in the\nperformance of its duties. [1] [Added by Stats 1968 ch 1395 § 1;\nAmended by Stats 1970 ch 1142 § 2.]\n[1] Italicized material preceding [1] added in 1970.\n[2] \"1972\" substituted for \"1971\" in 1970.\nSee note to § 16000.\nNote.-There was an identical section of this number which was added by\nStats 1968 ch 1380 § 1 and repealed by Stats 1970 ch 346 § 9.\nSee note to § 945.6.\n- E4 -\n§ 16080\nGOVERNMENT CODE\nCHAPTER 4. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COUNCIL\nSoc.\n10080. Mandatory dutles.\n16081. Discretionary powers.\nChapter 4 added by Stats.1968, c. 1380, p. 2712, § 1; Stats.1968, c. 1395, p.\n2753, $ 1.\n$ 16080. Mandatory dutles\nThe council shall:\n(a) Make a thorough study of relevant policles, practices, and programs in the state\nthat relate significantly to environmental quality, including noise emission con-\ntrol.\n(b) Identify major environmental quality problems, giving consideration to all of\nthe possible interrelationships between the degradation or improvement of air, land,\nand water resources.\n(c) Develop long-range goals and make recommendations, after holding public\nhearings, as to policies, criteria, and programs as guides in the protection, manage-\nment, and improvement of California's environmental quality.\n(d) Identify problems in existing environmental quality control efforts in the\nstate, Including unmet or inadequately met needs, undesirable overlaps or conflicts\nin Jurisdiction, between or among federal, state, regional, and local agencies, and\nany efforts that may be unnecessary or undesirable.\n(e) Recommend, after holding public hearings, such legislative and administrative\nactions as may be necessary to establish goals, policies, and criteria and to imple-\nment programs that will effectively protect, manage, and improve environmental\nquality on a long-range basis.\n(f) Review and make recommendations, after holding public hearings, on proper\nstate, regional. or local governmental mechanisms. which would formulate broad poli-\ncles, objectives and criteria for the coordinated protection, management, and im-\nprovement of California's physical environment.\n(g) Make recommendations for immediate action by state agencies as defined in\nSection 11000 of the Government Code which would effectively preserve and en-\nhance California's natural environment.\n(h) Appoint a scientific advisory group to consider and report to the council on\nthe state of the art of urban noise-control technology and to recommend appropriate\nactions necessary to effectively protect. manage, and improve the noise environment\non a long-range basis. This advisory group shall be composed of not less than five\nnor more than 10 members. To provide the necessary depth and breadth in modern\nacoustics, members of the scientific advisory group shall be practicing acoustical\nengineers.\n(1) Avail itself of technical information available from federal agencies involved\nin research and administrative measures for the control of noise such as the De-\npartments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Health, Educa-\ntion and Welfare. Specifically, the council shall apprise itself of technical advise-\nment available from the Interagency Aircraft Noise Abatement Program, including\nits Land Use and Airports:Panel and its Legislative and Legal Panel.\n(Added by Stats.1968, e. 1380, p. 2712, $ 1; Stats.1968, c. 1395, p. 2753, § 1. Amended\nby Stats.1909, c. 1042, p. - § 2.)\n- E5 -\nGOVERNMENT CODE\n§ 16081\n§ 16081. Discretionary powers\nThe council may:\n(a) Appoint an executive secretary and other staff.\n(b) Receive and disburse federal, state, or local funds.\n(c) Contract for services.\n(d) Hold public hearings.\n(e) Appoint such advisory groups as may be necessary to carry out its powers and\nduties.\n(f) Call upon any state agency for assistance in carrying out its objectives.\n(Added by Stats.1968, C. 1380, p. 2713, 8 1; Stats.1968, C. 1395, p. 2754, 8 1.)\nThe text of both 1968 additions was iden-\ntical.\n- E6 -\nAPPENDIX F\nCHART - STATE OF CALIFORNIA\nACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nLand Use\nWater Resources\nAir Resources\nSolid Waste Management\nNoise Abatement\nGeneral\nAGRICULTURE AND SERVICES\nAGENCY\n1. Works with cities, counties, and land.\n1. Conducts surveys to\n1. Regulates the method of\n1. License each pesticide\nDepartment of Agriculture\nowners in administering agricultural\ndetect plant pests and\ndisposal of ships' gorbage\nproduct and persons selling,\npreserves under the California Land Con-\nconditions new to the\nand the feeding of garbage\nor applying agricultural pesti-\nservation Act of 1965. Government Code,\nstate or area, Plant\nto hogs. Agricultural Code,\ncides for hire. Agricultural\nSection 51200-51295.\ndamage caused by oir\nSection 16001-16154, 10901-\nCode, Section 12811, 12101-\n*($13)\n($13)\n($13)\npollutants is measured\n10990.\n12107, 11701-11705.\nand reported. Agricul-\n($58)\n($58)\n($58)\n($564)\n($645)\n($729)\ntural Code Section 401,\n2. Designotes pesticides that are\n461, 5321.\ninjurious materials or injurious\n($20)\n($29)\n($46)\nherbicides requiring a permit\nfrom County Agriculturol\nCommissioner, before purchase\nand use. Agricultural Code,\nSection 14001-14033.\n($334)\n($372)\n($484)\n3. Anolyzes samples of fruit,\nvegetobles, feed, milk, and meat\nfor pesticide residues and stops\nsale of lots with excess residue.\nAgricu Itural Code, Section\n12581-12801.\n4. Works with Water Resources\nControl Board and Departments\nof Public Health, Fish and Gome,\nand the University of California\nin evaluating proposed uses of\npesticides.\nBUSINESS AND TRANSPORTA-\nAgricultural Code, Section\nTION AGENCY\n12824, 14102,-14103.\nDepartment of Aeronautics\n1. Establishes noise standords\nto a point not prohibited by\nfederal law with which all\ncivil aircraft operating from\npermitted airports in Calif-\nornia must comply effective\nJanuary 1, 1971. Public\nUtilities Code, Section\n21669-21669.4.\n($0)\n($31)\n($20)\n2. Noise standards can be\ndifferent for each classifica-\ntion of airport.\n3. Noise standord violation is a\nmisdemeanor and shall be\npunished by a $1000 fine for\neach infraction.\n4. As condition of site approval\nmake determination that od-\nvontages to public of future\nairport sites outweigh dis-\nadvontages to environment.\n($0)\n($0)\n($0)\n5. In the future sponsar must\ninclude in his request far\nairport funding a statement\nof the environmental impact.\n* Where available, costs for programs (in thousands of dollars) are shown in\n($0)\n($0)\n($0)\nparenthesis following text for fiscal years (1968-69) (1969-70) (1970-71).\nSTATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nF-1\nState Agency\nLand Use\nWater Resources\nAir Resources\nSolid Waste Management\nNoise Abatement\nGeneral\nDepartment of California\n1. Inspect vehicles for re-\n1. Enforce against throwing\n1. Excessive noise research\nHighway Patrol\nquired exhoust emission\nlighted objects or litter\nand highway enforcement.\ncontrol devices. Vehicle\nfrom vehicles olong highways.\nVehicle Code, Section 23130,\nCode, Section 2814\nVehicle Code, Section 23111,\n27150, 27151, 27160.\n($218)\n($231)\n($240)\n23112, 23115. Penal Code,\n($108)\n($191)\n($268)\n2. License and regulate of-\nSection 374b, Heolth and\n2. Technical assistance provided\nficial pollution control\nSofety Code, Section 13001-\nby Sofety Services Division.\nstations, Vehicle Code,\n13002.\nSection 2500-2504, 2520-2523,\n($6)\n($7)\n($7)\n2540-2549, 12303, 27153,\n27153.5,, ond 27156.\n($269)\n($332)\n($278)\nDepartment of Housing and\n1. Moy assist State Office of Planning.\n1. Assists local government and other\n1. Assists locol government\n1. The Department hos statutory\n1. The Department has statutory\nCommunity Development\n2. Assists local governments with re-\nstote agencies with housing and\nand other stote agencies\nauthority relating to woste\nauthority relating to noise\ndevelopment programs.\ncommunity development projects\nin developing a healthy\ndisposal under outhority\nabatement opplicable to\n3. Provides stotistics and research service on\nassociated with development of\nresidential environment\ngranted in the Health ond\nbuildings subject to provi-\nhousing and community development.\nwater sources and resulting recrea-\nincluding compatible in-\nSofety Code applicable to\nsions of the State Housing\n($100)\n($100)\n($100)\ntion facilities.\ndustrial growth patterns\nbuildings subject to pro-\nLow, Division 13, Part 1.5.\n4. Conducts demonstration projects.\nwith clean air os a major\nvisions of the State Housing\n($0)\n($1)\n($1)\n5. Assists local government and private\nconsideration.\nLaw, to buildings and instal-\n2. The Division of Building and\ngroups in developing housing.\nlations within mobilehome\nHousing Standards is now in\nparks, and also to buildings\nthe process of developing\nsubject to provisions of the\nproposed regulations in this\nEmployee Housing Act.\nareo.\nLabor Code.\n($250)\n($250)\n($250)\n2. The Department has in force\nond effect regulations in the\nabove areas.\nDepartment of Motor Vehicles\n1. Evidence of smog control\n1. Regulates the disposal of oband\n1. Administers the sale of\ndevice a prerequisite to\nabandoned or wrecked motor\npersonalized license plates\nmotor vehicle registration.\nvehicles. Vehicle Code,\nto finance the California\nVehicle Code, Section\nSection 11500-11522, and\nEnvironmental Protection\n4000.1, 4000.2, and 24007(b).\n22650-22856.\nProgram Fund. Vehicle\n($373)\n($404)\n($485)\nCode, Section 5100-5110\n($0)\n($0)\n($1,143)\nDepartment of Public Works\n1. The Department of Public Works hos been\n1. Highway design procedures and con-\n1. Conducts studies of motor\n1. Litter control and sweeping\n1. Noise study on the use of\nengaged in comprehensive regional transpor-\nstruction techniques to assure pra-\nvehicle related air pollution.\nprograms plus mointenance of\nphysical barriers built parallel\ntation studies in 10 urban areas of Calif-\ntection of water quality. Standard\nCalifornia Highwoy Commis-\nraadside rests and visto\nto the freeway to separate\nornia. Such cooperating ogencies as SCAG\nSpecial Provisions (since 1960)\nsion Action.\npoints.\nsurrounding community from\nABAG, Sacramento Regional Area Planning\nhave provided that highwoy con-\n($0)\n($640)\n($527)\nStreets and Highways Code,\ntraffic noise,\nCommission and the Comprehensive Plan-\ntractors must avoid working in flow-\n2. The following studies ore\nSections 27 and 101.6.\n2. Joint project with the Colif-\nning Organization in San Diego are furnish-\ning streams and causing siltation of\nbeing conducted as the result\nornia Highway Patrol to demon-\ning basic land use information for these\nrivers and streams.\nof action of the California\nCost of litter control and\nstrate feasibility of further re-\nstudies.\nHighway Commission.\nsweeping:\nducing noise limits for trucks\n2. Individual route and project considerations\nA Memorandum of Understanding be-\nG. Conversion of State vehi-\n($3,370)\n($4,410)\n($5,200)\nand motorcycles.\ninclude socio-economic environmental studies,\ntween the Department of Public Works\ncles to operate on low\njoint use, protection of scenic corridors,\nond the Department of Fish and Game\nemission fuels.\nCost of maintenance of rood-\nplanting and roadside rests.\n(March 10, 1961) specifies meosures\n($90)\n($167)\nside rests and vista points:\nto be employed to preserve or enhance\nb. Evaluation of low emission\n($550)\n($872)\n($1,140)\nfish and wildlife resources during\ndevices for new and used\nhighway construction.\ncars.\n($190)\n($100)\nSTATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nF-2\nState Agency\nLand Use\nWater Resources\nAir Resources\nSolid Waste Management\nNoise Abatement\nGeneral\nDepartment of Public Works\n3. Community and Environmental Factors Units\nThe capping of existing abandoned\nC. An inspection and\n3. Develop criteria related to\n(Continued)\n(CEFU) have been established in each High-\nwells is required in connection with\nmaintenance pilot\ntraffic noise and the use of\nways District. California Administrative Code,\nnew highway construction to prevent\nstudy to determine\nland in the vicinity of free.\nSection 1451; Streets and Highways Code,\ncontamination of water bearing strota,\nmethods of reducing\nways. Streets and Highways\nSections 210-214; Department of Transporta-\nCoardinated investigations are done by\nexhaust emissions\nCode, Sections 75.7 and 1298.\ntion Act, Section 4(f); 1968 Federal Highway\nthe Department of Water Resources.\nfrom mator vehicles.\nAct; 1969 Public Low 91-190 National\n($400)\n($50)\nEnvironmental Policy Act: 1970 Chapter 1433;\nFish and Game Code, Sections 1505,\nd. Totol air contaminants\nMarler-Johnsan Highway Park Act of 1969;\n1600, 1601, 1602, 5650, 12015; Water\nfrom the vehicle popu-\nGovernment Code, Sections 54220-54223;\nCode, Sections 13700-13806.\nlation.\nStreets and Highways Code, Sections 75.5,\n($33)\n($82)\n($50)\n($50)\nand 135.3-135.7.\ne. Control of emissions\n($10,681)\n($13,070)\n($14,943)\nfrom the construction\nprocess (aspholt\nplants, rock pro-\nducing plants, con-\nstruction equipment).\n($40)\n($40)\n3. Study of the use of low-lead\nand no-lead gasoline to\ndetermine the operational\neffects of State cors when\noperated on no-lead or\nlow-lead gasoline.\nHUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY\nDepartment of Industrial\n1. Regulates exposures to\n1. Industrial safety orders contain\nRelations\nhozardaus substances in\nregulations on excessive\nplaces of employment, in\nnoise.\nparticular, pesticides,\nradioactive material, and\nemission from vehicles\noperated in enclosed\nspaces. Labor Code,\nSection 6311, 6313-6316,\nand 6418-6420.\n($199)\n($225)\n($209)\nDepartment of Public Health\n1. No specific statutory authority, but the\n1. Assuring the safety, purity, wholesome-\n1. Develops and recommends air\n1. Conducting study of\nDepartment has a broad interest in land\nness, and potability of damestic water\n1. No specific statutory authority,\n1. Pesticide interprets\nquality standards based on\nuse and land use policies becouse of\nsolid waste problems\nsupplies. Health and Safety Code\nbut the Department has several\ndata on heolth effects of\nhealth. Health and Safety\nand needs of Calif-\nthe strong significance they have to\nSection 200-211, 4001-4002, 4010-4055,\nstaff members expert in the field,\nchemical agents in the\nCode, Section 200-211, 425,\nornia to:\nmany determinants of health. Heolth\nwho conduct noise studies and\n4450-4471; Water Code, Section 13144-\nenvironment. Health and\n39051, 39052.\nO. Determine current\nand Safety Code, Section 205-211, 2521,\n13165, 13411-13413; Revenue and\nprovide advice and assistance\nSafety Code, Section 205-\n2. Conducts studies on health\npolicies, practices,\n18897-18897.7.\nTaxation Code, Section 17226.\nrelative to community and OC-\n211, 429.11; Agricultural\neffects of air pollution.\nand programs in the\ncupational noise problems, in\n2. Prevent contamination of Stote's\nCode, Section 14103.\nHealth and Safety Code, Sec-\nState.\nrecognition that noise is o sig-\n($972)** ($570)** ($559)**\nwaters from sewage and other wastes.\ntion 200-211, 425, 39051-39052.\nb. Assess and evoluate\nnificont environmental factor.\nHeolth and Sofety Code, Section 200-211;\ncurrent salid waste\nHeolth and Safety Code, Section\n3050-3052, 4400-4461, 5410-5463; Water\nproblems and make\n205-211, 429.11.\nCode, Section 13165, 13240, 13411-13413,\nprojections of future\n13540-13541.\nproblems.\n**Costs shown include costs for Radiological Health which ore not\nSTATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nlimited to air but no separate cost estimates are available.\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nF-3\nState Agency\nLand Use\nWater Resources\nAir Resources\nSalid Waste Management\nNoise Abatement\nGeneral\nDepartment of Public Health\n3. Establish standards for reclamation of\n3. Provides laboratory and\nC. Evaluate existing state\n2. Vector Control Obtains\n(Continued)\nwaste water. Health and Safety Code,\nother support to the Air\nof the art and promis-\neffective control of\nSection 200-211; Water Code, Section\nResources Board. Health\ning new developments\nenvironmental conditions\n13411-13413, 13520-13523.\nand Safety Code Section\nas regards criteria,\nand carriers of animal-\n425, 39023, 39052;\ntechniques and methods\nborne disease. Health\n4. Assuring sonitation and safety of water\nRevenue and Taxation\nfor dealing with solid\nand Safety Code, Section\nrecreational areas and public swimming\nCode, Section 24372.\nwastes. Health and\n200-215, 1800-1813, 2425-\npools. Health and Safety Code, Section\nSafety Code, Section\n2426; Agricultural Code,\n200-211, 4050-4055, 4462-4471, 24100-24159.\n4. Radiological Health\n200-215.\nSection 6021.\nMaintains surveillance\n($868)\n($639)\n($646)\n5. Assuring that shellfish do not cause\nof environmental medio\n2. Provides advice and assis-\npoisoning or disease (as a result of\n(air, water, food, soil)\ntonce to local government\nconditions of water in which they grow).\nfor radiation levels.\nin solid woste management\nHealth and Safety Code, Section 200-211;\nControls users of radia-\nproblems. Health and\nFish and Game Code, Section 5670-5674.\nactive materials to pre-\nSafety Code, Section\n($1,222)\n($1,472)\n($1,393)\nvent harmful escape or\n205-215, 5410-5463.\ndisposal of materials.\n3. (See Water Resources\nHealth and Safety Code,\nColumn for Department's\nSection 203-211, 4400-\nconcern with water-borne\n4404, 5410-5463,\nwastes, and Air Resources\n25600-25876.\nCalumn relative to air-\nborne wostes.)\n($70)\n($70)\n($70)\nRESOURCES AGENCY\n1. Chapter 988, Statutes of 1968, established\n1. The Secretary for Resources has been\n1. The California Resources\nthe Secretary far Resaurces OS a member\nauthorized by Governor Reagon to\nAgency was designated by\nof the California Tahoe Regional Planning\ncoordinate the State of California's\nGovernor Reagan on March\nAgency and the Bi-State Tahae Regional\ncomments on the following:\n12, 1969, os the State en-\nPlanning Agency. The purpose of these\nO. All investigations of and reports on\ntity to coordinate the octi-\nagencies is to provide the proper planning\nwater development, flood control and\nvities of all stote agencies\nfor the development of the Tahoe Basin\nrelated projects of the U.S. Depart-\nrelative to thermal power\nwhile preserving the integrity of the Lake\nment of the Interior.\nplant siting. The Secretory\nitself. Since its establishment, either\nb. Reports an projects of the U.S. Army\nfor Resources has created\nor both ogencies have been funded through\nCorps of Engineers.\no power plant siting com-\non appropriation in the budget of the\nC. Projects pertoining to the Federal\nmittee to advise him on\nResources Agency.\nPawer Commission.\nthese matters and has\n($15)\n($65)\n($50)\nd. Soil Conservation Projects (PL-566)\ndelegated this responsi-\nof the U.S. Department of Agriculture.\nbility to that committee.\nThese comments include the effect of the\n2. It should be noted that\nproposed praject on the environment of the\nwhile air pollution is a\nState of California.\nmajor consideration, the\nCommittee studies the\ntotal environmental effect\nof any proposal.\nAir Resources Board\n1. Coordinates stotewide\nair pollution control\noctivities. Health and\nSafety Code, Section\n39052.\n($148)\n($200)\n($237)\n2. Determines the noture, cause,\noccurrence, and effects of\nair pollution. Health and\nSafety Code Section 39052.\n($524)\n($707)\n($1,007)\nSTATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nF-4\nState Agency\nLond Use\nWater Resources\nAir Resources\nSolid Waste Management\nNoise Abatement\nGeneral\nAir Resources Board\n3. Establishes air basins\n(Continued)\nthroughout the State and\nadopts oir quality stan-\ndards for these basins.\nHeolth and Safety Code,\nSection 39051.\n($107) ($144) ($100)\n4. Makes an inventory of\nsources in each basin,\nreviews regulations of\nlocal control agencies,\nprovides technical 05*\nsistonce to these agencies\nand enforces the air qua-\nlity standards when local\nagencies foil to do so.\nHealth and Safety Code,\nSection 39051, 39052 and\n39054.\n($152) ($206) ($305)\n5. Monitars oir pollutants\nand collects data. Health\nand Sofety Code, Section\n39052.\n($487) ($656) ($1,105)\n6. Adopts motor vehicle\nemission standards and\ntest procedures, approves\nemission control systems,\nand maintains surveillance\nof emissions from control\nsystems. Health and Safety\nCode, Section 39051 and\n39052.\n($698) ($942) ($1,585)\n7. Conducts research on air\npollution. Health and Safety\nCode, Section 39067.\n($3,000)\nBay Conservation and\n1. Has specific and limited jurisdiction over\n1. Protects San Francisco Boy for pre-\n1. B.C.D.C. studies and\n1. Bay Plan prohibits further\nDevelopment Commission\nstrip of land 100 feet inland from the shoreline\nsent and future generotions. Encour-\nB.C.D.C. Boy Plan indi-\nuse of bay simply as O\nof the bay to:\nages development of the bay ond its\ncote the importance of the\ndumping ground for wastes.\nO. require maximum feasible public occess to\nshoreline to their highest potential\nwoter surfoce of the boy in\nthe bay in all substantial new developments,\nwith a minimum of bay filling.\nmoderating the climate of\nand\nTitle 7.2, Government Code.\nthe bay area and in helping\nb. to reserve certain areas for priority water-\nto combat smog.\nrelated uses such as parts, water-related\nindustry, and water-reloted recreation to\nreduce need for future boy filling.\n($208)\n($183)\n($266)\nColorado River Boord\n1. Develop feasible and acceptable plans\nfor augmenting the natural waters of\nthe Caloroda River System, and the\nimplementation of those plans by the\nFederal Government and the affected\nstates. Port 5 of Division 6 of the\nWater Code.\n($89)\n($114)\n($93)\nSTATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nPortion of three year program required by 1970 legislation.\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nF-5\nState Agency\nLand Use\nWater Resources\nAir Resources\nSolid Waste Management\nNoise Abatement\nGeneral\nColorado River Board\n2. Develop and implement federal and\n(Continued)\ninterstate programs to preserve and/or\nenhance the existing quality of the\nColorado River. Part 5 of Division 6\nof the Water Code.\n($59)\n($66)\n($54)\nDeportment of Conservation\n1. Division of Forestry is responsible for pre-\n1. Division of Oil and Gos supervises\n1. Division of Oil and\n1. Division of Forestry regu-\nvention of fires and related forest programs\ndrilling of oil, gas and geothermal\nGas has regulations\nlates use of fire. The\non 38,000,000 acres of state and privately\nwells so as to, among other things,\nprohibiting the blow-\nDivision of Mines and\nowned lands. Specific Code and Section not\nprotect fresh water resources from\ning of natural gas to\nGeology provides dato on\ncited.\ncontamination. Public Resources\nthe air. Public Re-\nsites. Public Resources\n($2,764)\n($3,091)\n($3,101)\nCode, Division 3.\nsources Code, Divi-\nCode, Division 2, Section\n2. Division of Mines and Geology hazards\n($180)\n($195)\n($280)\nsion 3.\n2205.\nprogram seeks to identify and evaluate\n2. Division of Farestry protects and re-\n($24) ($26) ($28)\n2. Division of Oil and Gas\npotentially hozardous geologic conditions,\nvegetates forest, grass and brushlands\nregulates the disposal of\nPublic Resources Code, Division 1, Chap-\nto assure water production. Specific\noil field brines. Public\nter 2, Article 3 and Division 2.\nCode and Sections not cited.\nResources Code, Division3.\n($311)\n($446)\n($671)\n($1,939)\n($2,168)\n($2,091)\n($60)\n($140)\n($210)\n3. Division of Oil and Gos regulates spacing of\n3. Division of Soil Conservation develops\npetroleum, gas and geothermal wells and\nsmall woter conservation projects in\nunder subsidence obatement program ameli-\ncooperation with local entities.\norates subsidence on the Wilmington oil\n($569)\n($563)\n($275)\nfield, Las Angeles County. Public Resources\n4. Division of Mines and Geology assists\nCode, Division 3.\nRegional Water Quality Control Boards\n($2)\n($12)\n($14)\nin establishing standards of water\n4. Division of Sail Conservation plans small\nquality relating to mining operations.\nwatershed projects under the Federol Water-\n($15)\n($20)\n($25)\nshed Protection and Flood Prevention Act.\nDepartment of Fish and Game\n1. Department owns and operates 115,300 acres\n1. Fish and Gome Cade prohibits pollu-\n1. Fish and Game Code pro-\n1. Monitors pesticide levels\nof land most of which is waterfowl or deer\ntion of state woters with materials\nhibits deposition of litter\nin wildlife and works with\nhabitat. These lands are monaged to main-\ndeleterious to fish, plant, or bird life.\nin or near state waters.\npesticide users to develop\ntain a high environmental quality for both\nFish and Game Code, Section 5650.\nFish and Game Code,\nand insure satisfactory\nwildlife and man. Fish and Game Code,\n($416)\n($420)\n($420)\nSection 5652.\napplication methads. Fish\nSection 1525.\n2. Prohibits mining activities that permit\nand Game Code, Section\n($917)\n($920)\n($920)\neffluents or tailings to enter waters of\n1008.\nTrinity-Klamath River District during\n($160)\n($165)\n($165)\nspecific periods of the year. Fish and\nGome Code, Section 5800.\n($26)\n($26)\n($26)\n3. Investigates oll situations where water\nquality is deteriorating. Coordinates\nwith Regional Water Quality Control\nBoard in setting waste discharge re-\nquirements and water quality control\nplans and policies. Fish and Game\nCode, Section 5651.\n4. Performs studies to ossess the impocts\nof various developments on water quality.\nFish and Gome Code, Section 5651, 1601\nand 1602.\n($1,183)\n($1,190)\n($1,190)\n5. For protection of fish and wildlife re.\nsources, provides recommendations far\nmadifications to construction affecting\nnatural flow in lakes or streombeds.\nFish and Game Code, Section 1601\net seq.\nSTATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nF-6\nState Agency\nLand Use\nWater Resources\nAir Resources\nSolid Waste Management\nNoise Abotement\nGeneral\nDepartment of Navigation and\n1. DNOD under the policy direction of the\n1. The California Comprehensive Ocean Area\n1. DNOD requires waste dis-\nOcean Development\nInteragency Council for Ocean Resources\nPlan will provide for (a) orderly efficient\nposal facilities in marinas\nis preparing the Califarnia Comprehensive\ndevelopment and wise use of all marine\nconstructed with state funds.\nOceon Area Plan (COAP), which will be\nand coastal resources consistent with\nState Administrative Code,\nimplemented by DNOD and various county\nsound conservation principles; and (b)\nSection 5200.\nand local governments. Government Cade,\nmaintaining and improving the quality\n2. DNOD has convened a Vessel\nSection 8800.\nof the marine and coastal environment.\nWaste Management Task Force\n2. The COAP will express state policy and\n2. The COAP will provide for wise use and\nto seek equitable, practical,\ncriteria for land-use allocotion in the\nconservation of water resources.\nand economical means of deal-\ncoostal zone,\n($0)\n($100)\n($262)\ning with vessel waste which\nwill be compatible with forth-\ncoming federal regulations in\nthis field.\nDepartment of Parks and\n1. The Director shall maintoin and keep up-to-\n1. The Department studies federol water\nRecreation\ndate a comprehensive plan far the develop-\nprojects with respect to its area of\nment of the outdoor recreation resources of\ninterest, and reports on the extent of\nthe State and shall coordinate his activi-\nstate participation therein. The De-\nties with and represent the interests of all\npartment cooperates and participates\nstate and local agencies having on interest\nin the development of recreation and\nin planning, developing, and maintaining\nfish and wildlife enhoncement at\noutdoor recreation resources and facilities.\nfederal water projects. Public\nPublic Resources Code, Sections 5099.2\nResources Code, Sections 5094.2\nand 5099.3.\nand 5094.3\n($49)\n($65)\n($72)\n2. The Department designs, constructs,\n2. Identifies, evaluates and inventories the\noperates and maintains recreation\nscenic and historical resources of the State,\nfacilities at state water projects, and\nand identifies elements which are inadequately\nmanages project lands and water surfaces\npreserved, managed, or protected in relation\nfor recreation use. Woter Code,\nto the total environment. Public Resources\nSection 11918.\nCode, Section 541, 5003.\n($40)\n($45)\n($50)\n3. Through the medium of the State Pork System,\nestablishes, preserves, manages and operates\nfor public use and enjoyment those natural,\nrecreational and historical units which will\nmake the greotest contribution to the overall\nquality of life in Colifornia. Public Resources\nCode, Section 541, 5001.5, 5003, 5013, 5017,\n5020-5025 and 5096.1.\n($16,500)\n($19,400)\n($19,800)\n4. Works with local agencies of government,\nthrough state and federal gronts, and on Q\nconsulting and cooperating basis taward the\nestablishment of city, county and regional\nparks, recreation areas and historical units\nwhich are impartant to Califarnia's environ-\nmental quality. Reviews stotewide proposal\nfor federal, state, and local public works\nprojects for their effect on environmentol\nquality, especially OS they concern recrea-\ntion, parks, open space, scenic resources\nand state woter projects. Public Resources\nCode, Section 541, 542, 5005, 5099;\nGovernment Code, Sections 54220-54223.\n($5,500)\n($10,200)\n($6,200)\nSTATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nF -7\nState Agency\nLand Use\nWater Resources\nAir Resources\nSolid Waste Management\nNoise Abatement\nGeneral\nDepartment of Parks and\n5. Maintains a continuing surveillance of total\nRecreation\nenvironmental quality throughout the State\n(Continued)\nin relation to the Department's prime responsi-\nbilities, and recommends corrective measures\nas appropriate to prevent the deterioration of\nnatural beauty. Public Resources Code,\nSection 5097, 6818; Penal Code, Section 622.\n($30)\n($35)\n($40)\n6. Through its program for public information and\ninterpretation, informs the public concerning\nthe environment, its appreciation and enjoyment,\nand its protection or enhancement.\n($15)\n($20)\n($20)\n1. Conducts studies of land use, land classi-\n1. Assures that water of suitable quality is\n1. Licenses and monitors\n1. Conduct investigations\nDepartment of Water Resources\nfication, and population distribution to deter-\navailable to meet the present and future\nweather modification act\nregarding effects of waste\nmine present and future water requirements.\nwater requirements of the State most\nactivities, such as orti-\ndisposal on ground water\nWater Code, Section 225, 226, 12616.\neffectively Water Code, Section 10004.\nficial nucleotion of air\nand surface woter resources\n($647)\n($632)\n($549)\net seq.\nmosses by ground emis-\nWoter Code, Section 229.\n2. Owns or controls about 130,000 ocres of lond\n($2,534)\n($2,847)\n($2,594)\nsions. Water Code,\n2. Advises the State and\n2. Provides for development, utilization, and\nSection 400-415.\nas a part of water resources development\nRegional Water Quolity\nprotection of quontity and quality of water\n($30)\n($53)\n($50)\nprojects. Water Code, Section 250\nControl Boords on poten-\nresources through brood authority to in-\ntiol effects of proposed\net seq.\n3. Provides flood protection for millions of\nvestigate, plan, and implement physical\nsolid waste discharges on\nacres of land directly through state owned\nworks or management, techniques. Water\nground and surface waters,\nand operated projects and indirectly through\nCode, Section 229, 231, 12616 et seq.,\nbased upon soil character-\nfinancial reimbursement to local governments\n13750-51, 13800.\nistics of site under in-\nfor land ocquisition for federal flood con-\n3. Collects and maintoins O data bank on\nvestigation. Woter Code,\ntrol projects. Water Code, Section 12570\nSection 229, 12922.\nquantity and quality of water resources,\n($74)\n($95)\n($102)\net seq.\nthrough about 230 stream sampling,\n($16,100)\n($14,700)\n($6,800)\n2,000 ground woter sampling stations,\n4. Provides liaison between federal and local\nand numerous woste water sources.\nagencies in flaodploin management. Water\nWater Code, Section 226.\nCode, Section 8300.1, 12604.\n($580)\n($574)\n($565)\n5. Administers the Cobey-Alquist Floodplain\n4. Plons under brood outhority for water\nManagement Act, to assure adoption of local\nresources development or management\nzaning for flaodplain management. Water\nto control water quality, enhance fish\nCode, Section 8400 et seq.\nand wildlife habitat, pravide for re-\n($29)\n($36)\n($32)\ncreational use. Water Code, Section\n6. Constructs and operates the State Water\n11900 et seq., 12581, 12582.\nProject and provides financial assistance\n($165)\n($254)\n($238)\nfor construction of local projects as port of\n5. Provides technical advice and informa-\nthe State Water Facilities. Water Code,\ntion to State Woter Quality Control\nSection 12880 et seq., 12931 et seq.\nBoards in fulfillment of their responsi-\n($14,100)\n($11,900)\n($8,400)\nbilities. Water Code, Section 13225(c).\n7. Plans for implementation of waste water re-\n($200)\n($225)\n($190)\nclamation and saline water conversion projects\nto relieve demands on the use of the State's\nwater resources for water supply and waste\ndisposal. Water Code, Section 230, 12984.\n($86)\n($180)\n($337)\n8. Evaluate impact of water resources develop-\nment or management action on all phases of\nthe environment, and evaluate the impact of\nnon-water-oriented projects or actions an the\nwater phase of the environment. Chapter\n1433, Statute of 1970\nSTATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nF-8\nState Agency\nLand Use\nWater Resources\nAir Resources\nSolid Waste Management\nNoise Abatement\nGeneral\nReclamation Board\n1. Administers the Cobey-Alquist Flood Plain\n1. Exerts control over any work or usage\nManagement Act within the area of the Boord's\nof streams in Central Valley, if such\njurisdiction. Water Code, Section 8400\nusage has on impact on flood control\nthrough 8415.\nprojects or plans. Water Code, Section\n2. Provides and preserves flood protection for\n8700 through 8723.\nlands within the Sacramento and Son Joaquin\nRiver basins. Water Code, Section 8526 and\nSections 12648 through 12658.\n3. Owns about 20,000 acres of land in fee and\nabout 183,000 acres in easement. Water Cade,\nSection 8590.\nState Lands Commission\n1. Administers and controls over 4½ million\n1. Aids in protecting water resources from\n1. Has power to limit air\n1. No specific statutory author-\n1. Has power to prevent noisy\nacres of public lands owned by the State, in-\ncontamination by reviewing the plans of\npallution in leasing\nity, but the Commission\noperations when issuing\ncluding school lands, tidelands, submerged\nproposed oil recovery installations prior\nlands. Public Resour-\nissues pipeline easements\nleases. Public Resources\nlands, swamp and overflowed lands, and beds\nto placement on state-owned submerged\nces Code, Section 6301.\nfor sewer outfalls, etc., 05\nCode, Section 6301, 6873.2;\nof navigable rivers and lakes. Such manoge-\nlands. Public Resources Cade, Section\npart of its land management\nAdministrative Code, Seck\nment involves the issuance of mineral leoses\n6301, 6826, 6828, and Division 3, Title\nfunction. Public Resources\ntion 2122.\n(including oil and gas), surface leases, sales,\n2, State Administrative Code, Section\nCode, Section 6301.\nsalvage and other permits, and use planning.\n2122.\nReviews and acts on public problems such as\n2. Insures that Woter Quality Control Board\nbeach erosion and access to tidelands. Public\ncriteria are incorporated in leases.\nResources Code, Section 6301, 6321.\nPublic Resources Code, Section 6301.\n($1,575)\n($1,854)\n($1,652)\nState Water Resources\n1. Regulates the use of all surface water (ex-\ncept for ripation and pre-1914 rights) and\nControl Board\nconditions water rights to achieve woter\nquality goals. Woter Code, Section 174.\n($228)\n($251)\n($254)\n2. Adopts statewide policy for water quality\ncontrol. Water Code, Section 13440-13147.\n3. Reviews state and federal project reports\nto insure that they are not detrimental to\nwater quality and existing Rights. Water\nCode, Section 1242.5-1258.\n($574)\n($651)\n($680)\n4. Reviews actions of regional boards in estab-\nlishment and enforcement of requirements.\n5. Coordinates and reviews all water quality\nplans, data gathering and planning investi-\ngotions of state ogencies. Water Code,\nSection 13163-13166.\n($524)\n($535)\n($769)\n6. Administers stote and federal gront progroms\nfor woter quolity control facilities and\ncoordinates plonning gronts. Water Code,\nSection 13160.\n($132)\n($160)\n($199)\n7. Provides administration and policy and to-\ngether with nine regional water quality\ncontrol boards:\na. Develops comprehensive water quality\nmanagement plans for all water bosins\nin the Stote.\nb. Establishes and enforces waste dis-\ncharge requirements to protect water from\ndegradation due to liquid and solid waste,\nland construction proctices, droinage and\ngricultural uses.\nSTATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nF-9\nState Agency\nLand Use\nWater Resources\nAir Resources\nSolid Waste Management\nNoise Abotement\nGeneral\nState Water Resources\nC. Administers pollution cleanup and\nControl Board\nabatement program.\n(Continued)\nd. Establishes water reclamation require-\nments, water well standards and house-\nboat regulations. Water Code, Section\n13267-13320, 13260-13267, 13523,\n13801-13806, 13900-13908.\n($802)\n($924)\n($1,008)\n8. Certifies all projects requiring federal per-\nmit as to compliance with water quality\npolicies and criteria. Also certifies pollu-\ntion facilities for federal tax purposes.\nINDEPENDENT STATE AGENCIES\nDepartment of Education\n1. Developing the report of the\nCitizens' Advisory Committee\non Conservation Education.\n2. Working with school districts,\ncounty offices, and other\neducational units in devel-\noping and implementing con-\nservation education programs.\n3. Working with vorious public\nagencies, citizens' groups,\nand private industry to se.\ncure their support and CO-\noperation for conservation\neducation activities.\nOffice of Attorney General\n1. As Attorney for the people, the office is\n1. Counsel to state ogencies on water\n1. Counsel to state\n1. Enjoin conditions of noise\ninvolved in the public's right to access to\nmatters. (In particular State Water\nagencies on air re-\nconstituting a public nui-\nparticular public areos. (Common Low\nResources Control Board, regional\nsources matters. (In\nsance. (Common Law Powers)\nPowers)\nboards and Department of Public\nparticular, Department\n2. Title litigation involving lands of various\nHealth.) Government Code, Section\nof Public Health and\nbays and collection of evidence of environ-\n12500 et seq.\nAir Resources Board.)\nmental consequences regarding bay fill is\n2. As Attorney for the people of the Stote\nGovernment Code,\nunder way. Government Code, Section 12500\nof California, may toke actions re-\nSection 12500 et seq.\net seq.\ngarding the people's rights and interests\n2. See 2 under Woter\nwhich relate to the environment.\nResources.\n(Common Low Powers)\nPublic Utilities Commission\n1. Commission supervises construction of\n1. Commission hos jurisdiction to require:\n1. Commission has taken\n1. Takes corrective action on\nexisting and new highway-railroad grade\nconstruction, mointenance and opero-\non active role before\nnoise emission by railroad\ncrossings permitting new land uses. Public\ntion of any plant or system of water,\nthe Federal Power\naperations and bus lines.\nUtilities Code, Section 1201 et seq.\ngas, electric communication public\nCommission to assure\nPublic Utilities Code,\n2. Asserts jurisdiction of electric plant sites,\nutilities and transportation componies\nadequate quantities of\nSection 768.\nelectric power line routes and gas trons.\nin such o manner as to pramote the\nnatural gas to improve\nmission systems and issues certificates of\nhealth and safety of employees, custo-\noir quality.\npublic convenience and necessity for new\nmers and the public. Public Utilities\n2. Commission has recog-\nwater, gas, electric and communications\nCode, Section 701, 768,\nnized the additional\nutilities. Public Utilities Code, Section 762.\n($135)\n($163)\n($163)\nexpenses of low sulphur\n($900)\n($1,020)\n($1,025)\n2. Grants or denies certificates of public\nfuel oil supplies for\n3. Grants or denies certificates for air, highway,\nconvenience and necessity for new\nelectric power genera-\nor other transportation services.\nwater systems and moy condition such\ntion to reduce air pollu-\n4. Orders conversion of overhead electric and\ncertificates to promote environmental\ntion. Asserts jurisdiction\ncommunications utility lines to underground.\nquality. Public Utilities Cade,\nover electric plant sites,\nPublic Utilities Code, Section 768.\nSection 768.\nelectric power line routings\n5. Issues rules governing installation of under-\n3. Issues General Orders governing sofety,\nand gos tronsmission\ngrounding electric and communication lines\nservice construction, operation and\nsystems.\nand facilities.\nmointenance of gos, electric, water and\n($10)\n($10)\n($10)\nSTATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nF-10\nState Agency\nLand Use\nWater Resources\nAir Resources\nSolid Waste Management\nNoise Abotement\nGeneral\nPublic Utilities Commission\ncommunication systems. Public\n(Continued)\nUtilities Code, Section 768.\n4. Orders extension rules for gas, electric,\nwater and communications systems.\nUniversity of California\n1. Collects information on soil and vegetation\n1. Collects information on environmental\n1. Collects information on\n1. Conducts problem-solving\n1. Conducts problem-solving\n1. The Legislature hos found\ntypes; develops soil and plant-climate maps;\naspects of water resources, such as\nenvironmental aspects\nresearch on:\nresearch on certain aspects\nand declared that the Uni-\nmaintains ecologically undisturbed areas in\nquality of ground water.\nof air resources.\nWaste disposal and man-\nof noise abotement.\nversity of California is the\nU.C. Natural Land and Water Reserves System.\n2. Conducts prablem-salving research on:\n2. Conducts problem-sal-\nagement; incineration of\nprimary state-supported oca-\n2. Conducts prablem-solving research on:\nWater quality factors such as organic\nving research on:\nindustrial and urban solid\ndemic agency for research.\nLand-use planning; park planning and man-\nwastes, salts, nitrotes, pesticides, and\nAuto engine develop-\nwastes; management and\nEducation Code, Section\nagement; recreational and wildlands conser-\ntrace elements in surface and ground\nment; effects of smag\ndisposal of agricultural\n22550.\nvation, development, and management;\nwaters; eutrophication; drainage; waste\non human and animal\nsalid wastes; new woste\nenvironmental horticulture, landscaping and\nwater and sewage treatment; aquatic\nhealth, and plants;\ndisposal processes.\ndesign; watershed management; land resour-\nlife in relation to pollution and other\nmodels simulating\n2. Trains specialists in\nces evaluation; agricultural production\nenvironmental changes; watershed\natmospheric pollution\ndisciplines related to\nproctices in relation to land resources;\nmanagement; estuarine and marine\nand its effects; power-\nabove activities.\nenvironmental taxicology and pesticide\npollution problems; marine resources\ngenerating; industrial\n3. Extends the information\nresidues; ecology and geology of land areas\nand oceanogrophy; sea water and\nand agricultural sour-\nderived from research\n-- alpine, forest, desert and other wildlonds,\nbrackish water demineralization;\nces; instrumentation\nthrough a public educa-\ncoastline, etc.\npublic health aspects of water supply,\ndevelopment, effects\ntion program that includes\n3. Extends the information derived from research\nurban omenities involving water.\nof air pollution on\nadvice and counsel to local\nthrough a public education program that includes\n3. Extends the information derived from\nsolar radiation and\ngovernmental officials.\nadvice and counsel to local governmental\nresearch through a public education\nother aspects of the\nofficials.\nprogrom that includes odvice and\nenvironment; micra-\n4. Makes recommendations on pest control to\ncounsel to locol governmentol officials.\nclimates, inversion\nprotect public health and environment; provides\n4. Provides data and expertise to Water\nlayers and other\ninformation (pesticide residue data, etc.) on\nResources Control 3oord and other\nmeteorological aspects\nwhich environmental quality standards can be\nregulatory agencies,\nof air pollution; psy-\nbased.\n5. Trains specialists in disciplines relating\nchological, sociologi-\n5. Trains speciolists in disciplines reloted to\nto the above activities.\ncol, legal, economic\nabove activities.\nand political aspects\nof air pollution.\n3. Extends the information\nderived from research\nthrough a public educo-\ntion program that includes\nadvice and counsel to\nlocal governmental\nofficials.\n4. Provides data to Air\nResources Board and\nother regulatory agencies\non which quality standards\ncan be based.\n5. Trains speciolists in\ndisciplines relating to\nabove activities.\nSTATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nF-11\nGOVERNOR'S OFFICE\nOffice of Planning and\nThe Office serves the Governor and his cabinet as staff for long-range planning and research.\nResearch\nIn this capacity the Office has been directed to:\n1. Assist in the formulation, evaluation and updating of lang-range goals and policies for land\n5. Coordinate the development and operation of o statewide environmental monitoring system to\nuse, population growth and distribution, urban expansion, open spoce, resources preservation\nassess the implications of growth and development trends on the environment and to identify of\nand utilization, and other factors which shape statewide development patterns and significantly\non early time, potential threats to public health, natural resources and environmental quality.\ninfluence the quality of the State's environment.\n6. Coordinate, in conjunction with appropriate state, regional, and local agencies, the development\n2. Assist in the orderly preparation by apprapriate state departments and agencies of intermediate\nof objectives, criteria and procedures for the orderly evaluation and report of the impact of public\nand short-ronge functional plans to guide programs of transportation, water development, open\nand private actions on the environmental quality of the State.\nspace, recreotion and other functions which relate to the protection and enhancement of the\nState's environment.\n7. Coordinate research activities of State Government directed to the growth and development of the\nState and the preservation of environmental quality.\n3. Regularly evaluate plans and programs of departments and agencies of State Government,\nidentify conflicts or omissions, and recommend new state policies, programs and actions\n8. Assist the Governor in the preparation of Environmental Goals and Policy reports which shall\nrequired to resolve conflicts, advance statewide environmental goals and to respond to\ninclude:\nemerging environmental problems and apportunities.\nO. An overview, looking 20 to 30 years ahead, of state growth and development and a statement\nof approved state environmental goals and objectives, including those directed to land use,\n4. Assist the Department of Finance in preparing, as part of the onnual state budget, on integrated\npopulation growth and distribution, urban expansion and the conservation of natural resources.\nprogram of priority actions to implement state functional plans and to achieve statewide\nb. Description of new and revised state policies, programs and other actions of the Executive\nenvironmental gools and objectives and take other octions to assure that the program budget,\nand Legislative branches required to implement statewide environmental goals, including\nsubmitted annually to the Legisloture, contoins information reporting the achievement of stote\nintermediate-ronge plans and actions directed to natural resources, humon resources and\ngoals and objectives by departments and agencies of State Government.\ntransportation. Government Code 65025 et seq.\n($188)\n($234)\n($163)\nSTATE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION\nAND IMPROVEMENT\nF-12\n!\n/\n5\nE\n,\nthe\n&\nNY"
}