You can't have missed, over the past year, the debates over how government–federal, local–should respond and reorganize itself in response to potential terrorist threats. In the name of homeland security, great changes are taking place. What do they mean for the stormwater industry?

At first glance it doesn't seem that stormwater systems, per se, are much of a target. Not that damage can't be done, but there are faster and more dramatic ways to strike. Yet the physical infrastructure is becoming more interconnected all the time. Concerns about the security of the systems that keep the country running–the power grid, the water supply, communications systems, transportation and distribution lines–are nothing new. In 1998, Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 63, Protecting America's Critical Infrastructures, which called for all levels of government and the private sector to collaborate in protecting critical US assets and set off a spate of activity among agencies and private companies.

Last February, an article in the Journal of Homeland Security (established, by the way, almost a year before the attacks of September 11, 2001) presented an overview of security problems facing the water and wastewater industries (Richard Lancaster-Brooks, "Water Terrorism: An Overview of Water and Wastewater Security Problems and Solutions"). Although the main emphasis was on protecting drinking-water supplies from chemical and biological contaminants, the article also calls for a detailed inventory of stormwater assets–not for the reasons cities usually perform such inventories, but rather to determine their locations relative to sensitive facilities, their connections to sanitary sewer systems, and the potential access points they afford.

If we're scrutinizing every aspect of the water system and looking at all potential vulnerabilities, what new requirements might stormwater management face? If stormwater systems are perceived, from a security standpoint, as the weak link in the system, a whole new set of requirements might appear–one that has little to do with the mission of flood control or water quality, but which nevertheless must be paid for out of the existing budget. The article suggests, for example, installing tamperproof manholes and sensors in storm sewer lines as well as in sanitary sewer lines.

There are also potential gains for storm and surface water as the tools of these trades are in greater demand. Efforts are underway to create new and more sensitive, real-time devices to monitor water quality and test for various chemical and biological agents. If development in this area is accelerated–as it has been for some time in Israel, for example–technology advancements will benefit those who monitor surface-water quality.

The tremendous reorganizations the Bush Administration is proposing–even aside from the Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security–would drive agencies that have traditionally provided services into the security business as well, shifting their focus and at least some of their resources. From the FAA to the SEC (tracking terrorist funding) to FEMA (drawing up plans to cope with another terrorist attack), agencies are being asked to take on jobs that were once far outside their purview. Whether new priorities will siphon dollars away from existing programs, or whether we see new technologies and perhaps even new lines of funding become available, stormwater won't be exempt from the changes.

Send Janice an email

SW - November/December 2002