With the adoption of the Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Initiative in 1997, Maryland became the first state to enact a growth management strategy with targeted state funding in areas designated by local jurisdictions (the Priority Funding Areas Act). Although the legislation’s success at containing urban growth has been uneven, it has been hailed for its use of incentives opposed to a reliance on regulation (Cohen, 2002; Lewis, Knaap, & Sohn, 2009).
Maryland had consistently adopted legislation to promote land conservation and environmental protection with explicit references to the relationship between land use and water quality (Knaap & Schmidt-Perkins, 2006; Maryland State Archives, 2013)23.
Maryland’s long history of state involvement in land use and infrastructure planning begins with the establishment of the nation’s first state planning commission in 1933 (Clawson, 1981; Howland & Sohn, 2007; Lewis et al., 2009; Maryland State Archives, 2013; Sohn & Knaap, 2005). Today, state-level planning is the responsibility of the Maryland Department of Planning, which undertakes a wide range of activities including data analysis to support local planning initiatives, technical assistance, and the review of local plans and programs to “ensure that all the State’s natural resources, built environment and public assets are
23 In addition to this legislation, there are a number of planning initiatives around watershed protection within the state. Maryland is part of a regional Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy created in 1992 to support the restoration and protection of the Bay. In 2004, Maryland instituted changes to its Tributary Strategy (Maryland Department of the Environment, 2008b). The Department of the Environment now guides the implementation of stormwater management and soil and erosion policies contained in ten basin-specific plans through requirements for state-approved local ordinances (Maryland Department of the Environment, 2008a).
preserved and protected as smart and sustainable growth goals are attained” (Maryland Department of Planning, 2014).
Two key pieces of legislation mandate action and help shape current state and local land use planning efforts with respect to water resource protection: the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Act of 1984 and the Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992.Maryland jurisdictions are delegated planning and land use regulatory authority by Articles 66B, 25A, and 2824 of the Maryland Annotated Code, which stipulates
that jurisdictions exercising these powers must adhere to the provisions of state statutes including the adoption of a comprehensive plan. This legislation, as amended by the Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act of 1992, requires local
jurisdictions to address eight vision statements in their comprehensive plans including the first five statements that have implications for water resource protection.
1. Development is concentrated in suitable areas. 2. Sensitive areas are protected.
3. In rural areas, growth is directed to existing population centers and resource areas are protected.
4. Stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and the land is a universal ethic.
5. Conservation of resources, including a reduction in resource consumption, is practiced.
6. To assure the achievement of items (1) through (5) of this section, economic growth is encouraged and regulatory mechanisms are streamlined.
7. Adequate public facilities and infrastructure under the control of the county or municipal corporation are available or planned in areas where growth is to occur. 8. Funding mechanisms are addressed to achieve these Visions.
Md. State Finance and Procurement Code Ann. § 5-7A-01
In addition to addressing these visions, mandated comprehensive plans must include elements on land use, transportation, mineral resources, sensitive areas, and community facilities25. Jurisdictions that fail to comply with this mandate cannot rezone land.
In 1984, the Maryland General Assembly enacted the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Act (hence Critical Area Act), which included broad directives for local
jurisdictions to create programs to protect water resources and fish, plant, and wildlife habitat while accommodating growth in an environmentally protective manner (Chesapeake
Stormwater Network, 2011). Areas located 1,000 feet from the all tidal waters and tidal wetlands were designated as critical areas. In 1986, the Critical Area Act added a
requirement for a minimum 100ft buffer of natural vegetation from the mean high water line of tidal water, wetlands, and tributary streams along with other buffer provisions. This mandate is geographically-limited and does not cover all riparian areas in the state although the legislation encourages jurisdictions to extend these protections to other areas. As a result, this study investigates how the presence and design of mandates aimed a geographically narrow area (i.e., the Critical Area) influence the quality of riparian buffer policies throughout a watershed.
4.2.2 North Carolina
In contrast to the high level of state involvement in land use and planning observed in Maryland, North Carolina does not have a state office or department devoted to planning or similar state-level legislation on smart growth although there are programs aimed at basin-
level planning for water quality26. There is no statewide legislative mandates requiring jurisdictions to create a comprehensive plan in order to exercise land regulatory powers with the exception of the 1974 Coastal Area Management Act. This legislation, however, is only applicable to coastal counties and municipalities27. There are a number of growth
management strategies legally available to North Carolina jurisdictions (i.e., moratoria, adequate public facility ordinances, impact fees, urban service areas), but the adoption of these provisions remains at the discretion of local jurisdictions (Owens, 2006).
In 1989, the North Carolina General Assembly passed the Water Supply Protection Act, which required riparian buffers and placed restrictions on development density based on the classification of neighboring water bodies. Expansion of and revisions to this Act
required local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that meet minimum state standards to protect water supply sources. These ordinances are approved by the Environmental Management Commission, a 19-member commission responsible for adopting rules for the protection, preservation, and enhancement of water resources (North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, 2009). Each local government must administer and enforce the minimum requirement (which vary based on the classification of the adjacent water body) of a 30 foot vegetated stream buffer for low density development or a 100 foot vegetated stream buffer for high density development28 (North Carolina § 143.214.5, 15A
26 In 1991, North Carolina began a basin-wide initiative with the planning division of North Carolina Department of Water Quality responsible for the development of plans. These plans are either adopted, disproved, or modified by the Environmental Management Commission. North Carolina General Statutes require the demonstration of incremental progress to the goals set forth in the basin-wide plans.
27 The watershed selected for this study is not subject to the 1974 CAMA act.
28 The low density development option ranges from 1 dwelling unit/2 acre or 6% built upon area to 1 dwelling unit/ 0.5 acre or 24% built on area depending on the classification of the water supply body. The high density
NCAC 02B .0214-.0216). Similar to the mandate in Maryland, the Water Supply Protection Act is geographically-limited meaning it is only applicable to a limited portion of a
jurisdiction’s land area. Local jurisdictions can adopt ordinances that contain more stringent requirements than the state minimum with exceptions for agriculture and silviculture. Again, this study investigates how the presence and design of mandates aimed at a geographically narrow area (i.e., water supply watersheds) influence ordinance quality throughout a watershed.