Los Angeles Takes the Initiative on Low Impact Development
Posted January 22, 2010 in Curbing Pollution, Health and the Environment, Living Sustainably
When it rains in Los Angeles (which it really hasn’t stopped doing this week, except when it’s hailing instead), billions of gallons of water pour into the City’s storm drains and, carrying bacteria, pathogens, animal waste, metals, oils, and other pollutants, flow untreated into the Pacific Ocean and onto our beaches. Last week, the City of Los Angeles took a strong step toward protecting our coastal waters and toward making those billions of gallons of water available for use in a region struggling with chronic water shortages.
On Friday, the Department of Public Works unanimously approved a Low Impact Development (“LID”) ordinance for the City. As the L.A. Times reported, if ultimately adopted by the City Council and Mayor, the ordinance “would require newly constructed homes, larger developments and some redevelopments to capture, reuse or infiltrate 100% of the runoff generated on-site in a 3/4-inch rainstorm or to pay a storm water pollution mitigation fee that would help fund off-site, public LID” projects. Requirements like this are becoming standard practice in stormwater permits throughout the state, and with good reason. As my colleagues have discussed in earlier blog posts, because 100% of that runoff never leaves the site, it never picks up and carries pollutants to the storm sewers, preventing those pollutants from being dumped into the ocean or nearest river or lake. And because LID practices can help to mimic natural runoff patterns, they can help reduce the flooding that occurs when heavy seasonal rains (like those in California this week) come rushing off of paved surfaces.
Maybe most important for the region’s long term planning though, is that the rainwater captured in rain barrels or cisterns can be used for irrigation and landscaping or other non-potable uses instead of wasting fresh water for those applications, and water that is infiltrated into the ground can be used to recharge groundwater critical to the City’s safe supply of drinking water. In developing the LID ordinance, the City of Los Angeles cited to an initial NRDC analysis showing that LID practices could be used Countywide to infiltrate or capture enough water to supply nearly 930,000 people per year by 2030. Last summer, NRDC released a report detailing that use of LID in urbanized southern California and portions of the San Francisco Bay Area could increase local water supplies by 2030 enough to supply more than 810,000 families in California per year, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the energy used to supply water in the state.
California needs the rain (though maybe not the hail). And when it comes, we need to make sure we make use of it, while protecting our other water resources. Los Angeles has taken the initiative, and an important step toward adopting a LID ordinance. Other Cities should follow its example.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Dalan — Jan 24 2010 01:06 AM
Congratulations, L.A. You just further increased the cost of every single developement in your city while dotting your urban landscape with mosquito-breeding retention/detention ponds that look horrible because they are maintenance nightmares. You will soon see your West Nile cases increase just like every other city that implements on-site water retention design. Brilliant!
SDben5 — Jan 25 2010 01:46 AM
Do your homework before you post. LID is cheaper than conventional stormwater treatment and LID increases property values. and don't give me any of your scare tactics about west nile virus, vector control has always been built into LID from it's inception on the East Coast.
Global Patriot — Jan 25 2010 11:27 AM
Very encouraging to see Los Angeles take a proactive approach in this area. Something as simple as utilizing rainwater can have a huge impact on sustainability, not on in urban areas but in developing nations that have little to no water infrastructure.
Dalan — Jan 27 2010 01:48 AM
Cheaper? What are you talking about? Conventional stormwater treatment consists of collecting runoff in a pipe and directing it to a channel or stream that eventually ends up in a river. That's cheap. How is constructing retention ponds, installing and maintaining irrigation systems, paying for electricity to pump water from the ponds to irrigate, maintain the ponds (cattail and aquatic plant removal), routine dredging of the ponds (to remove siltation which reduces holding capacity) and annual mosquito abatement programs cheaper? Because you irrigate from a pond a slime develops on the inside of the pipes that requires more maintenance than an irrigation system connected to a potable supply. Because your water source (rainfall) is infrequent but your irrigation needs are constant, you still need a back-up water supply which is usually either municipal or well water.
What sounds great on paper doesn't always work in practice. I've designed both systems and each has its merits. Sometimes it makes good sense, environmentally and economically, to reclaim water, but sometimes it does more harm than good. It should be left to the free market to determine which is used. It should not be forced on it by the government. You shouldn't assume that everyone but you hates the environment. The "greenest" solution is not always the best solution. Another example of this is the LED lights in traffic signals that don't get hot enough to melt the ice that forms on them in cold weather. Sure you're saving some electricity, but at what cost? I believe that the free market will find this balance on its own without the intervention of government. I see it happen every day.
As far as property values are concerned, I have sat in City Council meetings in which citizens have threatened to sue the City because they believe a retention pond reduced their property value. Granted, the pond was poorly designed, but the intention of the Council's ordinance was good. Again, there must be a balance, and ALL options should be available, not a select few determined by government.
Noah Garrison — Jan 27 2010 12:51 PM
While it may not be cheaper in every circumstance, the U.S. EPA, in reviewing case studies from across the country, concluded that “[i]n the vast majority of cases . . . implementing well-chosen LID practices saves money for developers, property owners, and communities while protecting and restoring water quality.” (See http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/costs07/.) In fact, EPA stated that with only “a few exceptions” for projects implementing LID practices instead of conventional stormwater controls, “total capital cost savings ranged from 15 to 80 percent when LID methods were used.” EPA’s study found that “[c]ost savings are typically seen in reduced infrastructure” including “significant savings . . . due to reduced costs for site grading and preparation, stormwater infrastructure, site paving, and landscaping.” Moreover, EPA’s analysis considered only the costs of installation, and did not take into account the additional economic benefits LID can provide, including reduced costs and strain on municipal infrastructure and a decrease in combined sewer overflow events as the volume of runoff from individual sites is reduced, increased value of real estate from creation of greenspace, and reduced water bills from the availability of onsite supply. But most directly, it is exactly because LID can reduce the need to collect water in a pipe and convey it to stormwater systems that it is a cost-effective solution.
Stormwater permits under the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, as well as local city or county ordinances, have for years allowed the use of conventional controls to address the problems posed by stormwater and urban runoff. And while there may be instances in which the free market may help to direct sensible environmental policy, after 3 or in some places 4 rounds of stormwater permitting over a 20 year period, urban runoff remains one of the greatest sources of water pollution in the United States, and water quality in urban environments is in many cases getting worse, not better. It is clear that conventional controls are not sufficient to control the pollution of our coastal and inland waters, and stronger, LID based controls are not only advisable, but necessary.
Michelle — Jan 27 2010 01:15 PM
If conventional pipe conveyance is "cheaper", and the EPA analysis seems to indicate it is NOT, isn't that only because you're only calculating the cost of the pipe/conveyance system itself and not including the costs imposed by allowing untreated stormwater into our rivers, lakes, and oceans? LA County loses millions of dollars in tourist revenue each year when beaches must be closed due to high bacteria counts. Surfers and children playing in the sand get sick every day, costing millions and possibly billions in health care costs (35 million annually in LA County alone). And none of this includes the economic costs of our collapsed fisheries and the businesses dependent upon them. I'll take the pond scum. LID just makes sense.
Dalan — Jan 28 2010 01:02 AM
Ah, yes. This is the same EPA that declares the air we exhale a pollutant. If only we could just get rid of all the people, the world would be a better place. And you trust the EPA because.....? They banned DDT with no proof it is harmful to people, they made up data about the danger of second-hand smoke, they suppressed internal reports that global temperatures have been, in fact, cooling for over a decade...yes, TRUST THEM, TRUST THEM! The more power you give your government over you, the less free you become. It's really pointless to argue. Facts are of little importance to die-hard environmentalists.
SDben5 — Jan 28 2010 11:59 PM
If you feel something is in error in US EPA's report, please feel free to contact them and let them know and please let us here know as well. Trust and verify.
Otherwise, I feel you may be right that it is pointless to argue (although it's pointless for different reasons.)
Dalan — Jan 29 2010 02:37 PM
For starters, the referenced report uses per acreage cost estimates to calculate the conventional system costs and engineer's estimates from final plans for the LID design. In some cases, the LID cost in the report does not include actual final project cost including change orders. (You can call some of the project managers to verify this fact).
LID has many great ideas to offer, and it is very effective in many instances. I'm not arguing that fact. My point is the government shouldn't dictate it.
If it really is cheaper, developers will flock to this design philosophy on their own. I trust free market, not government.