Purpose

The outpouring of environmental concern that began in the 1960s in the UnitedStates resulted in passage of more than 20 major federal statutes and scores ofstate and local laws. As new problems were identified, new laws were added tothe list. Thus U.S. environmental policy is embodied in a multitude of laws andcarried out by many different agencies at different levels of government. Theearly laws tended to focus on a single medium or problem: air, water, noise,endangered species. Growing experience and scientific understanding suggestedthe importance of a more comprehensive approach such as the "cradle-to-grave"oversight of hazardous materials required by the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA). Nevertheless, U.S. environmental policy remainsgenerally fragmented, a result of the history of incremental additions to thestatutory arsenal. Recent concerns about cross-media pollution and preservationof entire ecosystems have yet to be embodied in law.

Important exceptions to this generally piecemeal approach to environmentaloversight are the more comprehensive planning requirements of the federalCoastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and the National Estuary Programestablished by the Water Quality Act of 1987. The former law encouraged coastalstates to develop comprehensive plans for protecting coastal resources, includingbeaches, sand dunes, and wetlands, and tried to overcome one of the mostimportant barriers to coherent policy making by allowing states to control federalprojects in state waters. The National Estuary Program reflects the new scientificunderstanding of the importance of estuaries in maintaining the health of largecoastal ecosystems and calls for development of Comprehensive Conservation andManagement Plans (CCMPs) in "estuaries of national significance."

The CCMP rests on a clear and systematic understanding of the multitude offederal, state, and local laws and agencies that have gained authority overdifferent aspects of the environment during the last quarter century and on theeffectiveness with which those laws are implemented and enforced. The purposeof this report is to provide an evaluation of those agencies and laws, along withtheir associated regulations, that constitute the regulatory framework forenvironmental protection of Galveston Bay, one of the estuaries of nationalsignificance covered under the 1987 law. This evaluation is the second stage in amultistage process that will result in development of the CCMP. The first stagewas an inventory of the laws and regulations, which is available separately butwhich forms the basis of this report. This management evaluation, along with anumber of scientific studies being conducted contemporaneously, will form the

2. Program procedures, funding, and staffing. For this, we are assessing anagency's capacity to undertake the duties outlined in the statutes and regulations.When examining capacity, the questions to be asked (standards to be applied) are:

• To what extent has the legislative branch funded the program compared tothe size of the task?

• Has the agency provided for enough staff to implement the program? Arethere support personnel? Do staff turn over frequently, so that the programis always being implemented by novices?

• Has the agency assigned legal and other professional staff specifically to theprogram, or do the program staff have to work with whoever is availablewhen they need internal support?

• Does the program have appropriate material resources: computers, travel,measuring equipment, etc.?

3. Agency policy, funding, and organization. For this, we are assessing whetherthe implementing agency has internal policies that are adequate to fulfilling itsauthority—in other words, does it have the will to implement the program goals.When examining agency policy, the questions to be asked (standards to be applied)are:

• Does the agency policy making body support the program? Do they usuallyapprove rules and regulations suggested by program staff, or do they waterthem down? Do they support program staffs requests for assistance inworking with federal agencies and the state legislature?

• Has the agency created a separate program or is the program subsumed inanother office?

• Has the agency ensured that the program receives all the money due to it?• Does the agency require program staff to undertake unrelated tasks?• Does the agency's legal division work closely with program staff to ensure

adequate enforcement? Do they enforce consistently and at a high enoughlevel to suggest seriousness of purpose?

4. Technical and environmental results. For this, we are examining theenvironmental outcome of agency programs. When examining environmentaloutcomes, the questions to be asked (standards to be applied) are:

• Has the water quality improved or deteriorated, with respect to all relevantpollutants? What are the continuing number of shellfish closures, fishkills, etc.?

• Has the quantity and quality of wetlands improved or deteriorated?• Has the quantity and diversity of living resources improved or deteriorated?• Have factors affecting human health improved or deteriorated? What are

the continuing numbers of shellfish closures, recreation closures,consumption advisories, pathogen indicators?

• Has the level of freshwater inflow been maintained or improved?• Is land use consistent with environmental protection of the Bay? Are there

new shoreline development restrictions, are they enforced? Is there anynew shoreline development or changes near the estuaries?

As noted, all these questions may not be answerable with data presently available.Limitations of the study are described in more detail below.

Report Organization

The regulatory framework for environmental protection of Galveston Bay is verycomplex, involving scores of agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. Oftena single environmental problem is addressed by several different agencies, eachresponsible for some small part of the problem. If we were to present ourevaluation on a program-by-program basis, the reader would have considerabledifficulty ascertaining the effectiveness of the overall approach to the problem.Our report is therefore organized according to the ten "problems" identified by theGalveston Bay National Estuary Program, called "action plan topics." These aretopics to be considered in the action plan that will precede the CCMP. Table 1lists the action plan topics that are discussed in this report.

Table 1-1. Action Plan Topics ListGalveston Bay National Estuary Program

Source Controls Estuary Management1. Point Sources 6. Shoreline Development2. Non-Point sources 7. Habitat Protection3. Spills/Dumping 8. Species Population Protection4. Dredging/Filling 9. Public Health Protection5. Freshwater Inflow 10. Subsidence/Shoreline Erosion/Sea

Level Rise

Following a brief description of Galveston Bay and a summary of the majorfindings, the chapters on the action plan topics include a brief description of thelaws and regulations (which are also described, often with more complete legalreferences, in the Management Inventory and its associated computerizedregulatory information system) and of the agency programs for implementingthese laws. After the description is a section which details the evaluationaccording to the criteria outlined above. Although we have attempted to make thechapters consistent in the way information is presented, each topic differs fromthe others in important ways. For example, some topics are relevant only at onelevel of government, and the entire analysis is devoted to that level. Similarly,some topics are comprised of several sub-issues, each of which is treatedseparately. The headings and subheadings in the chapters should help guide thereader.

We have included for each topic such data as are available concerning theresources devoted to the program: staff and budget. Because Galveston Bay is onlyone of many areas of environmental concern in Texas, it is often difficult to

13

determine precisely the resources devoted to the Bay alone. We have attempted toprovide additional information so that readers may determine whether they thinkavailable resources are adequate to the task. We should also note that budget datawere particularly difficult to obtain and that in many cases agencies resisted ourrequest for such information.

In addition to the action plan topics, GBNEP's Management Committee identifieda range of management concerns, such as permitting, research, and datamanagement. Although each of these issues is discussed to a greater or lesserextent under the action plan topics, we have also provided considerations of eachin a separate chapter. Following that, we attempt to provide an overall evaluationas well as some recommendations.

Report Limitations

Any study that covers an entire estuary system, even one that has grown to theunwieldy length of this one, must have some limitations. At the urging of theManagement Committee, we do not consider air pollution in this study, eventhough many people believe that air pollutants that waft out over the bay docontribute to diminution of water quality. We also do not consider sedimentquality, an issue of considerable importance in an area that is so frequentlydredged. GBNEP is sponsoring a study of sediment quality, and the Texas WaterCommission is also conducting studies concerning bay sediments. Finally, thisstudy is not as quantitative as we had hoped it would be. Although we believedfrom the outset that the management evaluation criteria we had identified wereappropriately qualitative, we thought that we would be able to support thequalitative analysis with quantitative data. In many cases, however, we foundthat the appropriate data were missing. In Chapter 15, we suggest the need formore policy-relevant scientific research so that some of these numbers would beavailable for future students of bay management.

Acknowledgments

One way we attempted to overcome the lack of numbers was by the breadth of oursources. We consulted many written documents, which are listed in thebibliography. More important, we interviewed scores of staff people in relevantagencies, members of local and state environmental groups, and industryrepresentatives. In deference to their willingness to provide us with candidevaluations and inside information, we do not cite them as sources for particularitems of information; a list of many of them is provided at the end of report,following the bibliography. We are grateful for their assistance and believe thatany merits this report may have are due in large measure to their generosity withtheir time and expertise.

The project was conducted by the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, TheUniversity of Texas at Austin. Student assistants included Stacy Seidlitz, StevenNeimeier, James Anantha, Kay Wilson, Kim Edwards, and Alex Pham. Otherresearchers included Anita Sadun and Judy Teague. Lauren Riggin providedextensive assistance in research and writing of this document. George Ward

14

offered technical and emotional support on numerous occasions. Thecomputerized information system for the inventory, which we used in reviewingthe laws and regulations, as well as much of the manipulation of data provided inraw form was conducted by W. James Hadden, Jr. Caren Troutman and JerryWermund of the LBJ School's Computer Office were invaluable in translatingdata from one format to the other. Neal Armstrong provided the water qualityself-reporting data, saving us from having to go through the contortionsassociated with obtaining the data on a tape; his separate report to GBNEP shouldalso be consulted. Special thanks to Leroy Killough and Michael McDonough ofthe Texas Water Commission, who turned our vague verbal descriptions intocomprehensible and elegant maps.

Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality: 22nd Annual Report,1990. Washington, D.C.: CEQ, 1991.

15