It is an honor to serve on the Editorial Advisory Board of Stormwater. I can’t help but think that Stormwater will be the preferred reading in your arsenal of stormwater management tools. I sense we are emerging upon uncharted territories, and this journal will stimulate such ideas as a professional certification program and national trade shows on nonpoint-source issues and maybe even initiate a college major for water resource managers.
      In this editorial, I want to address responsibility: yours, mine, and ours. Whether we like it or not, responsibility for clean water must be addressed at the local level. Having traveled across the nation to Portland, Denver, Austin, Orlando, and many other cities, I have noticed a common denominator in all successful stormwater management programs: positive proactive management and implementation. These communities have developed innovative approaches, addressing not only water quantity but also water-quality issues and implementing programs to ensure that their water resources meet applicable drinkable, fishable, and swimmable water-quality goals.
      With the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) facing each of our communities, I encourage smaller local jurisdictions to take proactive measures and implementation steps to achieve water-quality compliance on the local level. Water-quality attainment is not an easy job. Waiting in the soup line for handouts only puts us farther behind in achieving success. This is not to say we should base our stormwater programs on unfounded principles and inadequate scientific data, but rather we should plan our programs in a pragmatic way.
      In 1992, larger communities had to comply with the NPDES program, as part of the Clean Water Act. The program addressed municipal operations, construction permits, and industrial permits. Point-source wastewater treatment facilities were upgraded, and smaller communities could only anticipate the role they would play in the nonpoint-source continuance for compliance. These communities already had infrastructure problems such as flooding and repair and maintenance issues, with little or no funding to support their programs. Smaller urbanized areas could only wait for the regulations to be finalized and hope compliance was attainable.
      Some 3,500 communities nationwide will be included in NPDES Phase II in 2003. Recently adopted regulations mandate development and implementation of comprehensive stormwater management programs. A few communities have taken it upon themselves to "handle it," choosing to meet the challenges directly through innovative ideas in funding and program management. For most, however, funding has been and will continue to be the great challenge in achieving compliance.
      The City of Griffin, GA, "a Phase II community," decided several years ago to address the issues and manage its watersheds holistically. Griffin already had its share of flooding and nonpoint-source pollution resulting from urbanization. Recently, selected stream segments within the city were identified on Georgia’s impaired-waters list and will require establishment of TMDLs. In 1998, Griffin founded Georgia’s first stormwater utility as part of its stormwater management program. The utility is an integral component of the overall program and just one of the many supplemental funding sources driving the program. Others are 319(h) grants, ISTEA-21 monies, hazardous mitigation grants, special-purpose local-option sales tax, the state revolving loan fund, and most recently the Stream Restoration Mitigation Bank.
      With more than 3,500 communities affected and 10 times that many TMDLs forthcoming, communities will have no choice but to become more creative in the financial challenges of achieving compliance with future regulatory requirements. The Clean Water Act is here to stay. Local governments must meet the challenges before them. Nonpoint-source issues will require that water resource professionals and administrators look beyond traditional funding channels and ideas. Many will look to establish stormwater utilities. This was to be expected for the completion of the "trilogy." First there was water treatment, then wastewater treatment, and now stormwater management - all funded with user-fee - based systems.
      Critical components of comprehensive watershed management require a certain amount of data collection and resource assessment. Geographic information systems, inventory mapping systems, hydraulic and hydrologic modeling, and watershed assessments give communities the necessary data and understanding to plan effectively. It took a long time to realize that managing the watershed holistically would be the best way to understand and address the challenges facing us. It is our responsibility as professionals to manage the water supply and protect our resource. We must ensure that we provide good clean water for our downstream neighbors.
      The only conclusion one can draw is to manage it as if it were our own, because it is.

Brant D. Keller is director of stormwater utilities and public works for the City of Griffin, GA; executive director of the Georgia Association of Stormwater Management Agencies; and president of Water Enterprises.