Perceptions of Affects from Land Use Decisions on Water Quality and Supply

Transcription

1 CONNECTICUT INSTITUTE OF WATER RESOURCES Perceptions of Affects from Land Use Decisions on Water Quality and Supply A Survey of Municipal Decision Makers Holly Drinkuth 5/11/2009

2 Introduction Land Use Decision Makers The State of Connecticut has a long history of home rule in 169 local municipalities. Although State legislation guides, and in some cases requires, the adoption of particular regulatory bodies for land use decision making, regulatory oversight in each Connecticut community is directed by the goals, knowledge and interests of local citizens. To identify the water resource information needs of land use decision makers in Connecticut, it is necessary to assess the understanding and perceptions of impacts to water resources from local land use decision making. Connecticut municipalities are governed by town meetings and elected municipal officers boards of selectmen, city or town councils and in some communities, mayors. In most Connecticut municipalities local land use decision makers are volunteers with varying degrees of experience, education and interest. Local land use board members may be elected by general election or appointed by municipal officials. The number and type of boards and commissions as well as the number of commissioners may be very different from town to town. Municipalities support wide ranges of population - from 720 residents in the Town of Union to nearly 140,000 in the City of Bridgeport. Landscape features, transportation corridors and cultural factors impact development patterns and population trends. While rural municipalities with small populations may have fewer technical regulatory resources (e.g. planning administrators, professional enforcement staff and public utility departments) than larger metropolitan communities, they often experience less development pressure and impacts to natural resources. Since the early 20 th century, State legislation has required every municipality to appoint a tree warden to oversee the protection, conservation and management of municipal trees and urban forests. Mandated tree warden positions in Connecticut are filled differently in every town by citizen volunteers, elected officials or professional municipal staff (Ricard, 2006). Following the enactment of the Connecticut Clean Water Act in 1972, the Connecticut State Legislature authorized local municipalities to regulate activities impacting inland wetlands and watercourses. By 1988 Connecticut municipalities were required to establish local commissions for the oversight of all regulated activities with the exception of those conducted by the State of Connecticut. Inland wetlands and watercourse regulations are adopted and enforced by each independent municipality. (CT DEP 2009) In addition to mandated IWWCs, municipal land use boards enabled by Connecticut General Statutes include Planning, Zoning, combined Planning and Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals, Conservation and combined Conservation and Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commissions. Municipalities in Connecticut develop a commission structures to meet the 2 Drinkuth

3 regulatory and advisory needs and interests of their community within the bounds of State legislation. Dependent upon the number of citizens and local concerns, municipalities may combine commission responsibilities such as wetlands regulation and advisory conservation duties or town planning and zoning regulation. There are only 2 Connecticut municipalities, Eastford and Sterling that have not adopted zoning regulations and do not have a zoning commission. In Connecticut 78 municipalities have public groundwater supply wells serving more than 1000 people. Connecticut General Statute (CGS) 22a-354o requires each of these municipalities to appoint one of the existing land use commissions as the Aquifer Protection Agency to share protection and regulatory responsibilities with CT DEP. Municipal water works, sewerage, water pollution control and other commissions or authorities provide oversight in communities that offer these public services. Often professional staff members are required to obtain education and certification of knowledge pertaining to municipal water quality and water supply. Methods A survey instrument was designed to assess participant s perceptions of the following topics: affects on water quality and quantity from municipal land use decisions, municipal land use decision maker s responsibility for types of land use decisions and what information is used in the municipal decision making process. Additional survey data designed to assess learning preferences for water quality and water supply education were collected and will be reviewed in a subsequent report. An on-line survey of fourteen questions was developed using a variety of question formats including matrix multiple choice, single answer multiple choice and openended responses. To strengthen confidence and maintain anonymity, participants were permitted to skip questions they felt they could not or did not want to answer. A request for participation was ed through the listserv of the Green Valley Institute (GVI) and the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA) with a follow-up request forwarded to the same lists 3 weeks later. The survey website was viewed by 84 participants; Section 1 Community Water Decision Makers had the highest participation rate and was completed by 83 respondents while 64 completed the entire survey. Of the participants that responded to the question Are you currently or have you ever been a municipal land use decision maker? 53 (62% of the total number of participants) responded positively. Of these, 29 identified themselves as volunteer commission members, 22 identified themselves as professional municipal staff and two identified themselves as consultants. Because respondents were not required to give identifying information, the percentage and extent of participant experience in land use 3 Drinkuth

4 decision making is unknown; however members of the listservs used to distribute the survey are likely to have municipal decision making experience. To avoid confusion about the meaning of water quality and water supply, questions 1 and 2 included term definitions. Eight land use decision making commissions, staff and agencies (discussed above) were chosen as representative decision makers in most Connecticut municipalities. It was not possible to address the exact configuration of land use decision makers in all 169 towns; therefore not all categories were applicable to all participants. Results were calculated as total number of responses or the percentage of total number of answers per question. Summary of Results Community Decision Makers Responsible for Water Quality and Water Supply The first section of the survey was developed to determine respondents perception of municipal land use decisions and their affect on water quality and water supply in Connecticut communities. Participants were asked how much responsibility each of the groups has for making decisions that affect water quality and water supply in their community. The majority of respondents felt Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commissions (IWWCs) (93%), Planning and Zoning Commissions (PZCs) (77%) and Water Authorities (WAs) (71%) are very responsible for decisions that affect water quality while Conservation Commissions (CCs) (61%) and Boards of Selectmen or Town Councils (BOS/TC) (50%) are somewhat responsible for decisions that affect water quality. The majority of respondents (88%) felt Tree Wardens are not responsible for land use decisions that affect water quality (Figure 1). Participants were offered an opportunity to provide comments and list Other decision makers in question 1. Responses included clarification of answers (i.e. Water Authority = Waste Water Management (septic) ) as well as lists of departments, staff or agencies with responsibility for municipal land use decision making. Participants identified Zoning and Wetland Enforcement Officers (ZEOs), Wetland Enforcement Officers (WEOs), Departments of Public Works (DPWs), Town Engineers and Water Pollution Control Authorities (WPCAs) as having responsibility for municipal land use decisions that affect water quality. Two participants listed regional or district health departments as having responsibility for municipal land use decisions that affect water quality. Respondents felt WAs (81%) and PZCs (62%) are very responsible for decisions that affect water supply, CCs (61%) are somewhat responsible for decisions that affect water supply and Tree Wardens (95%) are not responsible for land use decisions that affect water supply (Figure 2). Open ended responses identified Other decision makers in question 2 as the following municipal staff and authorities ZEOs, WEOs, DPWs, Town Sanitarians and the 4 Drinkuth

5 WPCAs. Several respondents identified state or regional agencies as having responsibility for municipal land use decision making that affects water supply. These included the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Department of Public Health (DPH) and District Departments of Health. Responsibility for Land Use Decisions Affecting Water Quality Very responsible Somewhat responsible Not responsible Aquifer Protection Agency Board of Selectmen/Town Council Conservation Commission Inland Wetlands Planning and Zoning Tree Warden Town Planner Water Authority Figure 1. Distribution of responses to the question Which Town commissions or authorities do you feel have responsibility for making decisions that affect water quality in your community? Responsibility for Land Use Decisions Affecting Water Supply Very responsible Somewhat responsible Not responsible Aquifer Protection Agency Board of Selectmen/Town Council Conservation Commission Inland Wetlands Planning and Zoning Tree Warden Town Planner Water Authority 5 Drinkuth

6 Figure 2. Distribution of responses to the question Which Town commissions or authorities do you feel are responsible for making decisions that affect water supply in your community? Land Use Decision Impacts on Water Quality and Water Supply Participants were asked if they felt 8 types of land use decisions impact water quality and water supply. The majority of respondents (79-99%) felt that all 8 types of land use decisions impact water quality. With the exception of road location and stream crossings (29%) the majority of respondents felt all listed types of land use decisions impact water supply (79-84%) (Figure 3). The 8 land use decision types were divided into 11 separate activities to gauge respondents perception of land use decision makers involvement in decisions related to specific land use activities. Participants were asked to check all involved decision makers associated with each land use activity. Respondents identified PZCs as involved in different types of land use decision making, followed by IWWCs and Planners. The majority of respondents indicate PZCs are involved in zoning regulations, residential subdivisions, commercial and industrial development, road and driveway permitting, recreational permitting and agricultural activities. IWWCs were identified by the majority of participants as involved in the following decisions: residential subdivisions, commercial and industrial development, road and driveway permitting, recreational permitting, forestry activities and agricultural activities (Figure 4). Land Use Decisions Impacting Water Quality or Water Supply Water Quality Water Supply Zoning Regulations Residential Development Commerical Development Industrial Development Road location and Stream Crossings Agricultural Irrigation Recreational Irrigation Forestry Activities 6 Drinkuth

7 Figure 3. Distribution of responses to Which of the following types of decisions do you feel have an impact on water quality or water supply in your community? Agencies or Commissions Involved in Land Use Decisions No Town Authority Water Authority Town Planner Tree Warden Planning and Zoning Inland Wetlands Conservation Commission Board of Selectmen/Town Council Aquifer Protection Agency Zoning Regulations Residential Subdivisions Commercial Development Industrial Development Road and Driveway Permitting Agricultural Activities Forestry Activities Urban Tree Activities Recreational Permitting Sewer and Septic Permitting Public Water Supply Permitting Figure 4. Distribution of responses to the question Which agencies and commissions are involved in making the following decisions in your town? Colors represent the type of land use decision and bar widths represent the number of responses assigned to a land use decision maker category ( i.e. 81 respondents believe PZCs are involved in making zoning regulation decisions, 20 respondents believe CCs are involved in making zoning regulation decisions). Water Quality and Water Supply Data Availability To assess the types of information utilized during municipal land use decision making processes participants were asked to identify all types of information used in 8 categories of land use decisions. Respondents identified four major sources of information used in making land use decisions. In the categories of zoning regulations, subdivision or development applications and permitted activities participant identified information required in applications, local knowledge, Natural Resource Inventories, and consultant reviews as primary forms of data (Table 1). In the category of waste water (septic and sewer) permitting, respondents identified District Health Departments and information required in applications as primary information sources for decision making. In the category of public water supply permitting, information required in the application, District Health Departments, DEP and DPH were listed by more than half of respondents as sources of information for decision making. When asked if their town has 7 Drinkuth

8 adequate access to information about local water resources to make informed decisions, the majority of participants (94%) responded that they have good access or some access to information (Figure 5) of these 11% indicated that although information is available it is not used in decision making. Table 1. Highest ranked information sources for municipal land use decision making. Information required in the application Natural Resource Inventory Consultant Review Local Answers Knowledge Zoning Regulations 84% (54) 86% (55) 58% (37) 53% (34) Residential Subdivisions 95% (62) 79% (51) 68% (44) 49% (32) Commercial Development 95% (62) 79% (51) 66% (43) 48% (31) Industrial Development 95% (60) 76% (48) 62% (39) 48% (30) Road and Driveway Permitting 90% (52) 67% (39) 26% (15) 26% (15) Agricultural Permitting 75% (34) 75% (34) 47% (21) 13% (6) Recreational Permitting 87% (39) 73% (33) 49% (22) 16% (7) Access to Local Water Resource Information Good access to information Some access to information Poor access to information 49% 45% 6% Figure 5. The majority of respondents feel their town has good or some access to information about local water resources. Open-ended responses indicated 11% felt the information is not used in the land use decision making process. Discussion: Survey participants identified PZCs, IWWCs, WAs and Town Planners as having the most involvement in land use decisions that affect water quality and water supply. The results indicate participants strongly associate regulatory authority with responsibility for decisions that affect water quality and water supply. Respondents identified commissions, agencies and staff as involved in land use decision making that affects water quality and water supply, 8 Drinkuth

9 but did not necessarily view this as responsibility for water quality of water supply. One of the most striking examples of this is respondent s perception of Tree Wardens. Under the category of land use decisions that affect water quality, 99% of respondents identified forestry activities (removal and replacement of trees), 66% believe the Tree Warden is involved in Urban Tree removal and replacement and 88% think the Tree Warden is not responsible for water quality (Figure 6). Several respondents identified CCs as having no legal authority and one respondent made the statement The commission makes decisions; we [planners] provide the information. Under the category of Other, participants referred to State Agencies (DEP and DPH) and regional District Health Departments as responsible for municipal decisions that affect water quality and water supply. Several open-ended comments from participants indicated that water supply is the responsibility of the State, and municipal commissions are not authorized to make those decisions. One respondent indicated that municipalities have no local control over public water systems because they are permitted through DPH and the Department of Public Utilities. Forestry and Urban Tree Activities Has Affect (99%) Water Quality Involved (66%) Not Responsible (88%) Tree Wardens Figure 6. Respondents did not necessarily link involvement in land use decisions with responsibility for affects on water quality and water supply. Land use decision makers ranked with the highest ranked responsibility are regulatory commissions and professional planning staff. Several respondents discussed the role of state statutes in their closing remarks and indicated that local regulations do not explicitly allow commissions to make decisions based on water supply. One respondent indicated that enabling legislation should more clearly indicate local and State authority and that professional technical support from State and regional agencies should be more accessible to municipal decision makers. If water quality and water quantity are going to be regulated at the local level then wetland, zoning and subdivision enabling statutes need to specifically state the authority. It should also spell out where the local authority ends and the state authority begins. Local government will not be able to do a sufficient job unless there is true technical support from the levels of government above; i.e. timely review and comment on applications. Otherwise the regulation 9 Drinkuth

10 of much of what affects water quality and quantity is too technical for local officials to review and regulate without being legally challenged. The survey indicates decision makers, particularly PZCs and IWWCs, view the regulation of surface water bodies and storm water management as responsible for water quality but they do not necessarily view approval of activities and development proposals as ipso facto responsibility for water supply. It is clear participants believe the decisions they make or are involved in making have significant affects on water quality and supply in their communities, but there appears to be a disconnect between how they can implicitly exercise legal or advisory authority associated with their positions to positively affect or maintain water quality and water supply. This survey indicates that opportunities exist to assist municipal land use decision makers in better understanding their role in local and regional water quality and water supply. 10 Drinkuth

11 References Cited Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. (2009). A Citizens Guide to Participating in the Municipal Regulation of Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Retrieved May 2, 2009 from CT-DEP website: Ricard, Robert M. and Blonairz, David V. (2006) Learning preferences, job satisfaction, community interactions, and urban forestry practices of New England (USA) tree wardens. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 5 (2006) Zizka, Michael A. (2004), What's Legally Required? A Guide to the Legal Rules for Making Local Land-Use Decisions in the State of Connecticut. CT-DEP Drinkuth