The Natural Resources Defense Council surveyed more than 150 communities and developers across the country to learn what stormwater strategies they’re using and how cost-effective those programs really are. Here’s a sampling of the results.

By George Aponte Clarke and Nancy Stoner

Stormwater runoff is a serious problem facing communities throughout the country. Americans cannot swim in or eat fish from 40% of our nation’s waterways, often because of stormwater pollution (USEPA, 1998). Urban and suburban areas - dominated by buildings, roads, and parking lots - and the innumerable related activities, turn rain and snow into unwitting agents of damage to streams, lakes, and coastal waters. Covering the landscape with impervious surfaces increases the amount and speed of runoff. Activities such as dumping pollutants into storm sewers, construction, grounds maintenance, industrial activity, and driving contribute harmful contaminants to this runoff.
      Many Americans live in areas where water quality is already degraded by urban runoff pollution. The problem spreads as urban and suburban areas expand, impairing waters, destroying habitat, and threatening public health. These despoiled waterways are unattractive and unsafe and thus have a negative economic effect on surrounding communities. Even a partial accounting shows that hundreds of millions of dollars are lost each year through added government expenditures, illness, or loss of economic output (USEPA, January 9, 1998). Beach closings, contaminated fish and shellfish, property damage, and polluted drinking-water supplies from stormwater pollution are costly as well.
      For example, polluted stormwater runoff has a significant impact on communities that support water-based recreation and commercial activities. Americans take more than 1.8 billion trips to waters to fish, swim, boat, or just relax each year at an estimated daily value of $30.84 to each individual (USEPA, 1995). Some 35 million anglers spent more than $38 billion in pursuit of their pastime in 1996 (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996). Stormwater runoff costs the commercial fish and shellfish industries approximately $17 million to $31 million annually (USEPA, 1997). When stormwater pollution contaminates or suffocates fish, fills streams with mud and trash, and erodes streambanks, these commercial and recreational values are lost. Despite the importance of clean water and safe beaches to these economies, stormwater runoff often goes unchecked. This lack of management costs coastal communities money and jobs.
      Bacteria and other pathogens are nearly always present in high concentrations in urban runoff. They cause gastroenteritis and other illnesses to exposed individuals. This makes waters unsafe for swimming, boating, and other forms of water recreation. It also puts drinking-water supplies at risk. Expensive filtration systems are often needed to make these water supplies safe. For example, the estimated cost of filtration for New York City’s Catskill/Delaware system is $4.57 billion, which would increase ratepayers’ bills by 45%.

An example of erosion

Finally, stormwater runoff causes property damage. Covering the landscape with roads, rooftops, and parking lots increases the frequency and magnitude of floods, costing Americans billions of dollars each year (USEPA, 1997). By taking action, however, communities can avoid these costs and save money. For example, by adopting and enforcing responsible floodplain management and regulating new development in flood hazard areas, communities are saving a collective $800 million every year through the National Flood Insurance Program (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1999).
      Several articles have effectively documented the economic benefits of runoff control and watershed protection (USEPA, September 1995; Schueler, 1997). Even though avoiding the costs of urban runoff through stormwater management clearly has significant benefits to local economies, communities are often reluctant to take action. Many of these communities are concerned that stormwater management will be too costly or have an adverse effect on economic vitality. To foster action, it is important to continue to inform communities about strategies that are cost-effective and have a positive economic impact on the community. This is particularly important in light of new federal stormwater regulations requiring small to midsize municipalities to develop stormwater programs.
      In a recent report, Stormwater Strategies: Community Responses to Runoff Pollution, the Natural Resources Defense Council identified a number of strategies that provide cost savings and economic advantages while protecting the environment (Lehner et al., 1999). The report highlights more than 150 examples of stormwater strategies actually being used by municipalities, developers, and community organizations in a variety of settings across the country. Stormwater Strategies clearly demonstrates that stormwater pollution management does not have to be overwhelming for communities. The report finds that motivated communities are able to develop strong, cost-effective programs to fight this problem. Below is a sampling of the efforts highlighted in Stormwater Strategies.

Cost-Effective Strategies That Protect Water Quality

More and more, local officials and developers are demonstrating that strategies to prevent and control urban and suburban stormwater pollution are environmentally effective, economically advantageous, and often provide collateral benefits to the community. They are implementing pollution prevention strategies, preserving and using natural features and processes, involving members of the community, and using strategies that enhance the value of a site or surrounding properties.

Low-Impact Development and Design Save Money

Prairie Crossing project in Grayslake, IL

An important way to prevent stormwater pollution is to control runoff from areas of new development and redevelopment. One of the best strategies a municipality or a developer can employ is minimizing the aggregate amount of new impervious surfaces. Not only do these measures effectively protect water resources, they often cost less than conventional designs and can add aesthetic value to the site.
      Developers of the Prairie Crossing project in Grayslake, IL, prevented runoff pollution and saved money by using low-impact design strategies to reduce the amount of impervious surface at their site. The developers first reduced impervious cover by clustering the desired 317 residences on only 132 ac. of the site, which left 80% as open space. They then designed the developed area around a natural drainage system consisting of vegetated swales, restored prairie, and wetlands to treat generated runoff. Modeling indicates that this Stormwater Treatment Train system will remove approximately 85% of nutrients, metals, and suspended sediments and reduce peak flows by 68%. The economic benefits of this approach were significant. Eliminating curbs and gutters saved the developers approximately $2.7 million. Furthermore, Prairie Crossing is very appealing to homebuyers, with sales comparable or better than nearby conventional developments (Lehner et al., 1999).
      Sometimes reducing imperviousness requires taking a new approach, but the payoffs are often worth the second look. Both the US Army at Fort Bragg, NC, and the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) in Portland, OR, used innovative approaches to reduce the impacts from their parking areas and saved money as a result. Simply by redesigning the parking layout, Fort Bragg was able to reduce the area of its Vehicle Maintenance Facility parking lot by 40% and increase the number of parking spaces by 20%. The new design cost 20% less to build than the original, saving the Army $1.6 million. OMSI also redesigned its parking lot and used vegetated swales rather than conventional stormwater management to convey and treat runoff, saving $78,000 (Lehner et al., 1999).
      In addition, there is often a premium associated with properties adjacent to well-designed, aesthetically pleasing stormwater features or natural bodies of water protected from the harms of polluted runoff. The National Association of Home Builders found that proximity to water raises the value of a home by up to 28% (NAHB, 1993). Others have shown that developers can realize additional profits (and quicker sales) from dwellings fronting a wet pond or other aesthetically pleasing stormwater management features. In contrast, there is likely a devaluation of properties located near degraded bodies of water relative to their potential value (USEPA, September 1995; Schueler, 1997).

Benefits of Preserving and Using Natural Features and Processes

Charles River flagging is a low-cost way to inform the public about water conditions and trends.

Undeveloped landscapes absorb large quantities of rainfall and snowmelt; vegetation helps filter out pollutants from stormwater. Many communities and developers have found strategies that rely on natural processes to be highly effective and economically advantageous.
      The Staten Island Blue Belt project uses natural systems and processes to control flooding and prevent stormwater pollution in this relatively undeveloped part of New York City. Working with citizens, the city developed a plan that places existing natural drainage features at the heart of the stormwater system for 11 watersheds covering approximately 6,000 ac. Where existing storm sewers are located, settling ponds, sand filters, and constructed wetlands provide water-quality and -quantity control. Including the cost of land acquisition, the city expects to save approximately $50 million by avoiding construction of miles of expensive subsurface sewer lines. The community also benefits from and enjoys continued availability of open space and natural habitat (Lehner et al., 1999).
      Restoring damaged bodies of water can also yield a variety of benefits, including cost savings. In Aurora, CO, combining stream restoration with stormwater management features that rely on natural landscape functions achieved significant pollutant reductions while costing less than a more traditional approach to restoring Shop Creek. The system uses a variety of strategies including natural channel geometry, crescent-shaped drop structures, constructed wetlands, biofiltration, and infiltration to control erosion and improve stormwater quality. The design respects and preserves the natural aesthetic appeal of the site and provides habitat for wildlife and recreational opportunities for people (Lehner et al., 1999).

Involving the Public Has Economic Advantages

Individuals play a key role in reducing stormwater impacts both in their own day-to-day activities and by showing support for municipal programs. Case studies suggest that the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) is often tied to public education and involvement. An informed and active public can also save a municipality money.
      There are a wide variety of low-cost approaches to public education and outreach. One such approach is used in the Charles River Basin in Massachusetts, where nonstormwater discharges into storm sewers are a leading cause of impairment. Together, EPA, local environmental groups, and basin municipalities have been aggressively working to stop these discharges through inspections and stiff penalties. Informing the public plays an important role as well. Flags indicating the quality of the river’s water are a low-cost way of informing the public about daily conditions and water-quality trends (Lehner et al., 1999). This helps build public support for cleaning up the river and raises awareness about behaviors that affect water quality. By changing their own habits in activities such as caring for their lawns, driving and maintaining cars, and walking pets, individuals can reduce the amount of polluted runoff needing treatment.
      Citizens can also help with monitoring, inspection, and restoration activities. Several municipalities are taking advantage of this low-cost human resource in their stormwater programs. One example of this success is the Urban Watch Program in Monterey, CA, where trained citizen volunteers regularly monitor the city’s outfalls. This program provides important background information on the stormwater system, identifies sources of pollution, and helps target outreach efforts. It also saves the city approximately $40,000 per year in staffing costs (Lehner et al., 1999). Some cities, including Louisville, KY, and Chattanooga, TN, involve youth and students in identifying and controlling stormwater pollution and benefit from this inexpensive and knowledgeable labor source. Such programs provide important hands-on experiences; enhance a municipality’s ability to inventory, measure, and assess stormwater features; educate future community leaders about the importance of stormwater controls; and save money (Lehner et al., 1999).

Preventing Pollution Is Highly Effective and Saves Money

Incorporating pollution prevention before an activity takes place is almost always more practical and cost-effective than treating polluted water afterward. Low-impact development, buffer zones, alternative landscaping, and "good housekeeping" practices in both urban and developing areas are key components to preventing pollution at the source.
      The Smart Salting Program initiated by the Vermont Agency of Transportation is an excellent example of the environmental and economic advantages of pollution prevention. Normally, those applying salt to roads measure temperature using a standard outdoor thermometer. The temperature of the roadbed is often several degrees warmer than the temperature of the air above it, however, and may vary considerably over the area of snowfall. The agency uses infrared sensors mounted on salt trucks to calculate more accurately the amount of salt needed to melt snow and ice. This simple approach reduces statewide salt use by 28% on average, resulting in an approximate savings of $2.2 million annually (Lehner et al., 1999). Overall, Smart Salting techniques can help keep local streams and groundwater clean and can reduce municipal expenditures, including cleanup costs.

Creating incentives is another way to facilitate pollution prevention. In Palo Alto, CA, the Clean Bay Business Program uses positive incentives, regular inspections, ordinances, and helpful outreach to encourage productive efforts to reduce stormwater contaminant loadings from vehicle service facilities. If a facility uses all recommended BMPs and otherwise does not violate water pollution laws, the city grants it "Clean Bay Business" status for the year. The compliance costs are minimal, costing a facility $300 in the first year and $150 thereafter. In turn, the facilities use this recognition as a marketing and community relations tool. Such incentives work. The program increased compliance from 4% in 1992 to 94% in 1998, and violations dropped by 90% from 1992 to 1995 (Lehner et al., 1999).
      Often the cost savings of the pollution prevention action itself are enough of an incentive. For example, a study in Geauga County, OH, and St. Joseph County, IN, found that developers can benefit financially from aggressive, widespread seeding and mulching of newly developed lots. Seeding and mulching can reduce erosion by up to 86% and phosphorus loadings by 80%. Homebuyers perceive these "green" lots to be worth $750 more than comparable "brown" lots without seeding or mulching, more than twice the additional cost to developers (Herzog et al., 1998).

Conclusion

The benefits of stormwater pollution prevention go beyond environmental protection. Effective stormwater programs that protect water resources can contribute significantly to local economies. By avoiding costly treatment of contaminated waters, minimizing property damage from erosion and flooding, preventing human illness, and protecting waters used for recreation, communities benefit from good stormwater management. Also, the benefits often go beyond those easily measured. Stormwater pollution prevention measures usually offer ancillary quality-of-life benefits. Preserved areas offer parks, ponds offer beauty and wildlife habitat, clean streets are more attractive, sediment control improves fisheries, and flow control prevents flooding. Many municipalities, however, are wary of the perceived cost of such programs. Therefore, it is critical that these communities become familiar with demonstrated strategies that cost-effectively protect waters.
      Increasingly, communities are taking on the challenge of stormwater pollution - and succeeding. Municipalities and developers from across the country have found a number of ways to save money while enhancing water quality. Stormwater Strategies: Community Responses to Runoff Pollution provides an opportunity for communities developing or improving stormwater programs to learn about these strategies from their peers. The case studies highlight numerous tools and approaches that have demonstrated economic advantages. Municipalities that understand the benefits of preventing stormwater pollution and take advantage of these cost-effective strategies will create better stormwater programs that the community supports.

References

Federal Emergency Management Agency. "Federal Insurance Administrator News Briefing." FEMA News Room. September 23, 1999.

Herzog, M., J. Harbor, K. McClintock, J. Law, and K. Goranson. "Are Green Lots Worth More than Brown Lots? An Economic Incentive for Erosion Control on Residential Developments." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 1998.

Lehner, P.H., G. Aponte Clarke, D.M. Cameron, and A.G. Frank. Stormwater Strategies: Community Responses to Runoff Pollution. Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, NY. 1999.

National Association of Home Builders. Housing Economics. NAHB, Washington, DC. 1993.

Schueler, T. "The Economics of Watershed Protection." Watershed Protection Techniques. Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 469-481. June 1997.

US Environmental Protection Agency. Pathogens and Swimming: An Economic Assessment of Beach Monitoring and Closure. Draft Report prepared by Environomics Inc. 1995.

US Environmental Protection Agency. Economic Benefits of Runoff Controls. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Waterways. EPA-841-S-95-002. September 1995.

US Environmental Protection Agency. Economic Analysis of Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule: Final Draft, Office of Wastewater Management. December 1997.

US Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register Proposed Rules. Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 1536-1643. January 9, 1998.

US Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress. EPA841-R-97-008. April 1998.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: National Overview. pp. 4-5. July 1997.

George Aponte Clarke is a policy analyst and stormwater project coordinator with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in New York City, NY. Nancy Stoner is a senior attorney and director of NRDC’s Clean Water Project.