Planning for water quality in OH: What role(s) for planners?

Abstract

The Clean Water Act of 1972 requires states to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for surface waters not expected to comply with water quality standards after controls have been put in place to address point sources of pollution, typically from business and industry. These TMDLs have gained attention as nonpoint sources of water pollution are increasingly recognized as intractable challenge by localities and their states (Hoornbeek et al., 2013). Planning at a watershed geographic scale has been promoted by the U.S. EPA to address both the scientific and community based challenges faced in addressing TMDL levels. Studies have focused on the breadth of watershed groups participation, on watershed group membership typologies, on watershed plan development, as well as on implementation of plan recommendations (see, e.g., Hardy and Koontz, 2008; Koontz and Johnson, 2004; Hoornbeek et al., 2013). However, the role these planning efforts play within community based comprehensive planning, as well as the inclusion of planners in the watershed planning efforts, remains unclear.This paper uses the state of Ohio as a case study to explore the role of planning and planners with respect to nonpoint source water quality mitigation, specifically related to the Section 319 grant related funding, through watershed planning efforts. Section 319 directed watershed planning are focused on TMDL guidelines to combat nonpoint source pollution levels. Addressing water quality at the watershed planning level in Ohio is a multidimensional and complex process involving multiple stakeholders at every level of government, public and private planning entities, as well as educational institutions and the nonprofit sector. There have been at least eight watershed related planning processes in the state since the start of this century, including Section 319 and the Balanced Growth Program which also requires a watershed based plan.This paper examines interview data with state level watershed entities and survey data from Ohio planners. These sources provide insight into state watershed action plan processes and the involvement of planners in water quality protection in general and watershed level planning activities in particular. The paper begins with a discussion of the complex watershed planning setting in Ohio. It moves into the results of the survey and interviews to understand the role of planners in this environment. The paper concludes with an assessment of the potential policy implications of the results and directions for future research. The results of this paper are important to ongoing efforts to improve and protect surface water quality in the U.S.