Recent work in planning and political science has shown the dura­ bility of liberal hopes for •progressive cities• (Clave! 1986, Clave! and Wiewel 1991, Deleon 1992, Goldsmith and Blakely 1992). In Chi­cago, New York, and San Francisco, long-dominant •pro-growth coali­tions• have fallen to alternative coalitions who tried to ensure that more resources reached or remained in the hands of "the community" (Mollenkopf 1983 and 1993, Elkin 1987, Stone 1989, Deleon 1992, Clave! and Wiewel 1991). In practice, this diversion of resources tended to mean more power for resident-controlled neighborhood groups (Castells 1983), more resources for non-profit economic and housing development corporations (Mier and Moe 1991), more oppor­ tunities for public participation in local decision-making (Keating and Krumholz 1991 ), and constraints on large-scale real estate developers (Deleon 1992).

Mandates for water-quality improvement have forced regulators and planners to confront the problem of urban runoff, still an important source of water pollution. This ar­ticle discusses those mandates and how to meet them, and provides examples of ongoing nonpoint water pollution control programs in the San Francisco Bay Area. These examples suggest that cleanup of urban runoff may require more comprehensive regional planning to encourage a de­velopment pattern conducive to pollution control.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the Berkeley Planning journal. The end of a decade marks a good time to reflect on its past and future significance for readers, authors, editors, and the field of planning.

The early 1980s were marked by questions about the boundaries, limits, and significance of the field coupled with a search for new paradigms. Founding editor Hilda Blanco, now on the faculty of Hunter College, wrote: "Planning is a major human practice, on the par with science or art, indispensable and ever expanding in niodern society." The founding editors wanted to push the field beyond its tra· ditional focus on land use. They envisioned a Berkeley spirit or style of planning that drew from broad intellectual traditions, made a close connection to the social sciences and social research, and had a so­ cial conscience, expressed in an early rejection of the planning pro­ fession as merely technical expertise, its critical attitude towards es­ tablished institutions, and its strong advocacy for social justice.