When developers build new communities, they don’t just build houses. They also install the infrastructure that will carry stormwater off driveways and streets.
It won’t surprise you that I think green infrastructure--things like pocket parks, green roofs, street trees, and other features that absorb rainwater--is the best way to prevent dirty stormwater from getting dumped into our rivers and beaches.
But it might surprise you to learn that many developers think green infrastructure accomplishes something else as well: it keeps costs down.
I routinely hear developers say that using measures like pervious pavement and urban forestry save them money during construction and increase profits at the point of sale.
I was just at a conference in Buffalo, for instance, where one of the speakers talked about his brother, a developer. His brother’s rule of thumb is that using green infrastructure in new neighborhoods costs 20 percent less than conventional techniques and generates 20 percent more in revenue.
These perceptions were confirmed in a groundbreaking EPA study called, Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development Strategies and Practices. It looked at seventeen case studies and found that in most cases, upfront costs were lower for LID projects than for conventional ones, and the savings in the LID cases ranged from 15 to 80 percent.
If you don’t put in curbs, gutters, and underground storm drains in a new development, but instead grassy swales with the landscaping designed to drain into them, it’s cheaper.
So if LID costs less than conventional ways of managing stormwater, why isn’t it more mainstream? If green infrastructure comes with a host of additional benefits--from making subdivisions more attractive to increasing property values--why isn’t it routine?
Because hurdles remain in the way, even if cost is rarely one of them.
The status quo is one of them. Some people believe the development industry is slow to change. As I said, I see plenty of developers touting the benefits of green infrastructure, including the National Association of Homebuilders, whose builders’ guide to LID asks:
Ever wish you could simultaneously lower your site infrastructure costs, protect the environment, and increase your project’s marketability? Using Low Impact Development (LID) techniques you can.
But it is a large industry accustomed to doing things a certain way. And many developers believe buyers want what is familiar to them. Gutters and curbs are familiar. Open streets and rain gardens less so.
Yet even more daunting than design norms is the thicket of ordinances that govern development. In some communities, builders are required to install gutters and curbs, and don’t have the leeway to explore alternatives. Sometimes they must meet a specific engineering standard, and it may be hard to prove to regulators accustomed to pipes that a swale will meet it just as well.
Almost always, these regulations were designed without the broader watershed in mind.
The EPA’s new rule making will not only remove some of those local hurdles but it will also prompt the development industry to embrace more green practices.
Right now, the EPA is in the information gathering stage. If you have experience with green infrastructure--as a developer, designer, buyer, or stormwater manager--I urge you to share your knowledge with the agency.
This is our chance to inform the direction of the rules so that they encourage a practice that is good for watersheds, good for communities, and good for the bottom line.
]]>
But I have one problem with the article: it could leave the reader thinking that little can be done to address this costly challenge. It gives the sense that sewage is flowing, and no one can stop it.
That simply isn't true, and as the article mentions, Philadelphia is one of the cities working to prove it. .
Philadelphia is undertaking one of the most ambitious stormwater plans in the nation. Instead of simply building more storage pipes to hold runoff during rainstorms, Philadelphia is investing $1.6 billion in green infrastructure--things like urban forestry, street-edge gardens, and pervious pavement-- to prevent most of the runoff from hitting the pipes in the first place.
In fact, it has committed to capturing 80 percent of combined sewage and stormwater that would otherwise flow into the Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers and nearby creeks every time it rains and put it back into the ground, let it evaporate, or store it for re-use such as for watering plants.
Entitled "Green City, Clean Waters," the plan calls for Philadelphia to do in a comprehensive fashion what other cities are currently doing piecemeal. And because the green infrastructure will be so widespread, the city is essentially launching a public works campaign that will bring broad economic, public health, and jobs benefits to Philadelphia.
I recently blogged about the ways green spaces enhance urban communities and property values. Philadelphia wanted to measure those benefits, so it commissioned a triple-bottom-line analysis of its plan (a TBL looks at environmental and social implications, as well as economic ones). The study compared the green infrastructure measures to a traditional 30-feet-wide tunnel option. The findings are instructive.
Just as important during the recession, the green infrastructure creates new opportunities to hire local labor. Building a tunnel requires workers too, of course, but they are highly skilled laborers who likely would already be employed in construction. Stormwater landscaping and restoration, on the other hand, could generate more than 15,250 new entry-level green jobs.
The research shows that green infrastructure can save Philadelphia money--money it would have to spend on unemployment benefits, public health services, and climate change adaptations.
But how do you pay for these investments up front? The New York Times article implied that federal funding is the only option. I would never say anything negative about federal funding--cities and states absolutely need access to federal dollars to restore their waterways. But there are a lot of other ways to finance green infrastructure solutions as well, and Philadelphia is experimenting with some of them right now.
For instance, the city has incorporated green infrastructure into the development process. Every time land is developed for streets, homes, businesses, or industry, sustainable stormwater management must be part of the plan: new projects must meet a 1-inch onsite retention standard.
The city has also its changed stormwater fees. Water rates typically cover how much water you use, which doesn't send a price signal about how much stormwater you generate. Now property owners in Philadelphia will be charged according to the amount of impervious surface area they have, which means the businesses that generate the most stormwater in the city will contribute proportionally to cleaning it up.
DC, where I live, also changed to an impervious-based rate last year, but it has not yet adopted a citywide greening plan, as Philadelphia has. Hopefully the article in the Times will inspire DC to learn from Philadelphia's example.
]]>
The truth is that the best way to keep dirty stormwater and other urban pollution out of our rivers and off our beaches is to use green infrastructure: things like pocket parks, green roofs, street trees, and rain gardens. It turns out that these green measures have tremendous benefits for people as well.
A recent study done at the University of Rochester, for example, concluded that when people come into contact with nature, even in the simple form of a tree or potted plant, they become kinder, more generous, and more community-minded than when they focus on artificial, human-made surroundings.
I have read similar studies in the past. Many researchers have concluded that natural settings make people happier and healthier, but this is the first one to recognize that green spaces can make people nicer.
The Rochester study confirms something I already knew about the importance of green infrastructure in our communities. But it also confirmed something I knew about myself.
After spending most of my day in office buildings in Washington, DC, I relish the chance to get outside. I live in suburbia, but when I walk along the Matthew Henson bike/walk trail, I feel transported. And when I stroll through the lovely county-owned garden near my house, I start to unwind, and I start to smile at the other people who are enjoying nature just like I am.
I am sure many of you have favorite escapes too, places that help you relax in the midst of stressful city living. Indeed, most of us know from experience that having tree-lined streets and nearby parks make urban neighborhoods much more livable, not to mention more valuable. But green oases aren't just pretty. They have real and lasting social benefits.
The Rochester study included four separate tests, and in each one of them, the people who were exposed to natural elements said they valued close relationships and community more than the people who were exposed to spaces devoid of nature. But this is only the latest study. Others have found links between green infrastructure and lower crime rates, less violence, faster recovery from illness, and better grades for students.
The authors of the Rochester study believe these findings have major implications for city planning. "There's a real value to having green space. It serves the community," said Dr. Richard Ryan, one of the lead researchers.
Keep this in mind the next time your community is weighing the benefits of new green infrastructure. Using rain gardens to stop dirty stormwater from ending up in your city's river isn't just good for the fish. It is good for you too.
]]>
Sen. Cardin's bill, the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act, contains important new provisions to hold the Environmental Protection Agency and the states accountable for setting and enforcing strict limits on pollution. It calls for a clear, enforceable limit on nutrient pollution and assigns specific federal, state and local responsibilities and funding mechanisms to meet pollution reduction goals. The bill also calls for an interstate program to help achieve timely, cost-effective pollution reductions and offer new market opportunities for farmers and others innovating pollution reduction controls.
The bill delivers what the Bay and the public deserve most: accountability and results from the billions in federal dollars that go to agricultural conservation and water quality assistance programs within the Bay watershed. The Act will help states and localities focus tax dollars on the most cost-effective ways to reduce pollution to our rivers and streams. If pollution reductions aren't being met, EPA will step in to make sure the job gets done. This is good for the Bay, good for the water and good for the country.
For more than 25 years, the region has struggled - and failed - in a largely voluntary effort to protect the Chesapeake Bay. Thousands of miles of streams still do not meet basic water quality standards due to pollution from leaking septic systems, sewer outflows, factories, animal waste and runoff from roads, crops, lawns, and construction sites.
Thankfully, President Obama and his administration have shown historic federal leadership to clean up the nation's largest estuary, including issuing an Executive Order in May. Earlier this month, NRDC released the report Seizing a Watershed Opportunity: NRDC's Plan to Clean Up the Chesapeake Bay and its Beaches, outlining numerous threats facing the Chesapeake Bay and providing a Congressional playbook to solve them with the one-two federal punch we need to finally make progress in restoring the Bay. Sen. Cardin's legislation was a top priority in our report.
Many local rivers in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, West Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. - all areas with waters that drain into the Bay - remain unsafe for swimming, fishing, and drinking. We have the tools to clean up this mess. The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act will end the excuses and inaction and put those tools to work.
While this is an important first step, the real work still lies ahead. Support from other congressional leaders is critical to the bill's success. Anyone living in the watershed benefits from this bill. Your drinking water, favorite swimming beaches, best fishing spots - and even your crab cake and rockfish sandwiches - all come from the Bay or the waters that flow into it. It's time to raise our voices in support of this opportunity to protect the water that sustains us.
]]>What does an energy bill have to do with beachwater? An awful lot, it turns out, because global warming poses an immediate risk to nearly every town and city beach across the country.
I saw for myself how this works just a few weeks ago. Like millions of Americans, I fled the August heat by heading to the beach. My family chose Block Island, just off the coast of Rhode Island, for our swimming holiday. But our trip was cut short when Hurricane Bill loomed on the horizon and prompted many vacationers to evacuate.
It turns out Hurricane Bill wasn't as powerful as expected. Still, I don't regret leaving early. I have learned from my years as a water advocate that you don't want to swim at the beach after a powerful rainstorm, whether it's a hurricane or a sudden downpour.
Why? Because when it rains on town and city streets, water rushes into storm drains pulling oil, toxins, and fertilizers along with it. In many communities, stormwater gets passed through the same pipes as sewage, and when the system gets swamped by rain, the sewage gets dumped raw--with all its cargo of infectious bacteria, viruses, and parasites-- right next to nearby beaches.
In NRDC's Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches, we discovered that there were more than 20,000 days of closings and advisories in 2008. Stormwater runoff was the number one identified cause.
Global warming could send these beach closing numbers through the roof.
Global warming will cause more extreme storm events, including downpours. And the more powerful storms we have, the more pathogens will end up in our beaches--specifically more microbes that cause stomach flu, diarrhea, skin rashes, and neurological and blood infections.
Luckily, those of us who care about keeping our beaches safe and clean and open have this new tool at our disposal: the climate legislation that passed through the House in June and is now headed to the Senate.
The bill could help protect our beaches in three critical ways.
Since the Senate has not yet released its own version of the bill, we don't yet know exactly which programs will be included in the final version. But I remain optimistic.
Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland, for instance is not only a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee charged with drafting the Senate climate bill, but he is also the chair of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee. He is well information about and able to communicate the interplay between fighting global warming and keeping our water clean.
I encourage you to add your voice to this effort. Click here to tell your senator that you support combating climate change and preserving our beaches at the same time. You can also click here to find out how well your favorite beaches are handling stormwater, and then contact your local officials to encourage them to support the climate bill--the newest thing in clean water protection.
]]>
Many of the journalists I spoke to were surprised by how much human and animal waste is fouling our beaches, especially in the Great Lakes, where 13 percent of beachwater samples violated public health standards
After all, we live during the 21st century in the richest country in the world. We shouldn't have to cancel beach trips-or contract diarrhea or skin rashes-because our aging stormwater and sewage systems dump waste into our streams and coastal waters. Surely we can do better than this, right?
The answer is yes, America can do a better job of keeping our beaches and waterways clean. In the past, we pioneered major innovations in water treatment and public health.
The trouble is there hasn't been much innovation in the United States in our treatment of water and wastewater in decades.
We desperately need to embrace the next wave of modernization in our water systems. The solutions already exist, and a number of forward-thinking cities have begun to implement them, but in order to put them in place on a widespread scale, we need new national standards that will motivate cities to take action.
Until we do, our trips to the beach will continue to send far too many of us rushing to the bathroom or the emergency room.
If you ask water gurus what the major accomplishment of the Clean Water Act was, the first answer you will often get is: it required the secondary treatment of sewage.
Before the law passed, most cities were still dumping raw sewage into rivers, lakes, and oceans, or they were only treating providing primary treatment-simply removing the solids.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 changed that. It required all sewage to undergo secondary treatment and, as a result, plants today use both biological and mechanical treatment methods to remove contaminants. This is how Lake Erie was cleaned up. It is how the Hudson, Potomac, Ohio, and many other rivers were cleaned up too.
The Clean Water Act's mandate of secondary sewage treatment was a public health milestone. But it was one of many in American history. Back in the 1800s, when cholera epidemics were killing thousands, people figured out that you shouldn't get your drinking water from the same place you dump sewage. This prompted cities to put intake pipes upstream of waste discharge.
This system worked for awhile until people realized that one city's downstream sewage dump was another cities upstream drinking water source. Just think of how many communities draw water and dump sewage along the Mississippi River.
Experts suggested that cities start treating sewage before it got released into waterways. As early as 1916, some U.S. cities stepped up their treatment techniques. The results were astonishing. Many public health advocates say that improvements in sanitation saved more lives than any medical innovation in the 20th century.
But even though the treatment technology was available, not all communities adopted it--not until the Clean Water Act passed and mandated improved controls.
That was back in 1972. We haven't had a major nationwide technological innovation since then. And yet current secondary treatment methods don't address what is now the biggest source of water pollution in the United States: nutrients.
Nutrients fuel algal blooms, and when algae die, the process sucks up oxygen in the water, creating the infamous Dead Zones in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico. These deadly nutrients come primarily from fertilizer, either organic or manufactured, sewage, and animal feedlots.
Most current treatment plants were designed to reduce organic waste, not nutrients. This is a next generation problem, and we need to implement the next generation solution. The technologies exist to help sewage plants do this, but for many, there is no incentive, no mandate, and very little funding to support their use.
Similarly, for contaminated stormwater-the largest identified cause of beach closings and advisories-we can utilize low impact development, or "green infrastructure." These techniques, including rain gardens along sidewalks and streets, green roofs for absorbing rain on buildings, and permeable pavement, help rainwater soak back into the ground instead of running off and carrying urban pollution into overtaxed sewer systems and waterways.
Now, more than three decades after the passage of the Clean Water Act, it is time to leap forward once again. We need new standards and new techniques to protect our water and our health. We must require facilities to reduce their nutrient pollution. In many cases, this can be accomplished with relatively minor adjustments to existing biological treatment processes.
For stormwater, we need to we design our neighborhoods, office buildings, and strip malls to protect water resources. EPA has been talking about why these approaches are better for almost a decade - now it is time to put them into action comprehensively.
Once these innovations become routine--just as secondary treatment once did--we will enjoy cleaner, safer waters for swimming. And NRDC's Testing the Waters report will no longer have to count beach closings in the thousands (click here to see if your beach is clean). I look forward to that day.
]]>