Making the Land Use/Transportation Connection: Quietly Revolutionizing Land Use in the 21st Century

• Date: 01 August 2010

40 ELR 10746 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 8-2010

R E S P O N S E

Making the Land Use/Transportation

Connection: Quietly Revolutionizing

Land Use in the 21st Century

by Gerald P. McCarthy

Gerald P. McCarthy is Executive Director of Virginia Environmental Endowment in Richmond, Virginia, and a member

of the Commonwealth Transpor tation Board. He acknowledges with appreciation the work of the state Secretariat of

Transportation in providing information regarding the new transportation/land use connection legislation and regulations.

In her article, e Quiet Revolution Revived: Sustainable

Design, Land Use Regulation, and the States, Sara Bronin

argues that af ter almost four decades since the publica-

tion of e Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control by Fred

Bosselman a nd David Callies, it is time to revive some pre-

dictions about that “quiet revolution.”1 Bronin uses the green

building example as t he basis for reconsidering the necessity

for “extralocal” land use controls and the interplay between

state and local land use functions and authority. is is an

interesting lens through which to examine a very old ques-

tion, having at its core the balance of power between the two

levels of government as well as the balance between develop-

ment and conservation. e report by Bosselman and Callies

was commissioned by the new President’s Council on Envi-

ronmental Quality and was published in 1971. e report

analyzed several innovative state land use laws to learn how

some of the most complex land use issues and problems of

re-allocating responsibilities bet ween state and local govern-

ments were being addressed, especially focusing on those

laws designed to deal with problems related to land use issues

of regional or state concern.

A proposed federal bill was drafted, for example, that

called upon states to identify and control development in

areas of critical environmental concern, assure that develop-

ment of regional benet is not blocked or unduly restricted

by local governments, and control large-scale development

and land use in a reas impacted by key facilities. Legislation

and programs cited and analyzed included the (1) Hawaiian

Land Use Law, (2) Vermont Environmental Control Law, (3)

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commis-

sion, (4) Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, (5) Massachu-

setts Zoning Appeals Law, (6) Maine Site Location Law, (7)

Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Program, (8) Wisconsin

Shoreland Protection Program, and (9) New England R iver

1. Sara Bronin, e Quiet Revolution Revived: Sustainable Design, Land Use Regu-

lation, and the States, 40 ELR (E’ L.  P’ A. R.) 10733 (Aug.

2010) (a longer version of this Article was originally published at 93 M. L.

R. 231 (2008)).

Basins Commission. e conceit embedded in the report, its

major policy goa l, was to assert that some problems—envi-

ronmental protection and conservation in particular—were

too big for loca l governments to ha ndle correctly a nd eec-

tively, and that something bet ween the loca l and state level

of regulation needed to be established to do that job. Bronin

states that the “quiet revolution” never occurred, and that

now it might via the opportunities presented to localities and

builders by “green building.”2

In fact the “quiet revolution,” a radical idea when Bos-

selman, Callies and the Council on Environmental Quality

raised it in 1971, has proceeded, mostly under the radar, in

communities across the country and in ways not even imag-

ined in the early 1970s. Using the place I know best, the

Commonwealth of Virginia, I shall try to illustrate some of

the progress over the past few decades.

“e use of land is a fundamental determinant of envi-

ronmental quality.”3 is was written in the very rst report

of the Virginia Governor’s Council on the Environment.

Just as the federal Council did, Virginia’s environmental

leadership recognized that a new approach to land use con-

trol was needed. e idea of a federal law to accomplish it,

however, was politely viewed as highly unlikely to happen.

Accordingly, work began on a long-term program of land use

reforms that continues to this day.

In 1972, Virginia enacted its Wetlands Control law, prob-

ably the rst time that the state interposed its own standards

on local land use decisionmaking in order to protect a vital

natural resource. e law established local wetlands boards

to carry out state criteria when loca l permits were sought to

alter or destroy wetlands in coasta l localities. In 1973, Vir-

ginia enacted a Sediment and Erosion Control law that gave

localities responsibility for preventing erosion and sedimen-

tation fouling local rivers and streams. e state Division of

Planning and Community Aa irs attempted to pass a bill to

identify and control development in areas of “critical envi-

2. See id.

3. T S  V’ E, Dec. 1971.

Copyright © 2010 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.